Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Child Benefit

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]

Mr. Nigel Evans: It is always good to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Coe), who has just delivered his maiden speech as a Whip. I congratulate him on that. I hope that many of his subsequent speeches will be equally short.
We have a great opportunity this morning to discuss an issue that is important not only to me, but to many other hon. Members. There has been much discussion—a lot of heat rather than light—about child benefit. The question whether child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds should continue has been turned into a token of political virility by Labour Members as they try to demonstrate, within their current internal battle, where the soul and heart of the Labour party lie.
Many of us have in our constituencies youngsters of 16 to 18 who are in further education and whose families receive child benefit. I have estimated that more than 8,000 young people in my constituency would be affected by any plans to stop child benefit for families who have youngsters at sixth-form colleges and schools. They study in Ribble Valley and beyond, in places such as Preston college, Clitheroe royal grammar school, Queen Elizabeth grammar school, which is just outside my constituency, and Stoneyhurst, which is at the heart of it.
About 7 million families receive child benefit for about 13 million children. It was phased in between April 1977 and April 1979, replacing the redundant child tax allowance and the family allowance. I requested this debate to show why child benefit is so effective and why it is that Labour Members should speak out in support of this vital benefit which helps so many families. It has become clear that the issue is more than just a row over spending; it has become an issue of social justice. Child benefit gives money to families effectively by providing for the children at whom it is targeted at a time when they most need it.
No one can argue that limited resources should not be spent carefully and effectively, but to raid the child benefit kitty in order to appear responsible is as damaging as making an assault on the old-age pensioners' Christmas bonus, as was done in 1975 and 1976. It is the Conservatives who have proved their ability to control Government spending while targeting benefits more effectively. The Secretary of State for Social Security has won almost universal praise for the way in which he has trimmed welfare spending. He will save £5 billion by

2000 and £14 billion into the next century, while maintaining essential public spending such as universal child benefit.
It is safe to assume that we are all agreed on the benefits of education, not just to the individual, but to the economy as a whole. Surely, then, we should look at ways in which to ensure that young people get the best opportunity to further their education. There should be no dogmatic obstacles in the shape of a new tax to hinder young people in getting a good education. Perhaps this is just a softening-up exercise, the beginning of a tax continuum, with a new tax at 16, a graduate tax penalising higher education later, and finally, a good kicking in the world of work with penal rates of taxation after full-time education.
The Government have proved time and time again that they back education, with Government funding for further education and training at more than £3.5 billion for 16 to 18-year-olds. The number of young people staying on at school after 16 has now reached 72 per cent.—up from 59 per cent. in 1979. Even among the children of unskilled parents, the staying-on rate has reached 56 per cent., compared with 20 per cent. under the last Labour Government. That is due at least in part to the opportunities delivered by child benefit.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my hon. Friend agree that child benefit is of particular importance to Lancashire, where the wage rate is lower than in many parts of the country? We also have exceptionally good secondary schools in my constituency, including two grant-maintained grammar schools and a specialist language school. Therefore, people go to endless lengths to try to keep their children at school. If we kick them in the teeth with a tax of £550 for every child who stays on at school, that will be an enormous deterrent and will send fewer students to the excellent university of Lancaster.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend makes a strong case. I know that she feels deeply for the young people who benefit from education in Lancaster, who, we hope, will go on to university having left full-time education at 18.
In 1979, one in eight children went to university; now, the figure is one in three. The last thing we want to do is reverse that trend. We want to give young people the opportunity to realise their full potential. That is what I fear is at the heart of the matter. If families are denied child benefit, some young people will have to decide whether they can remain in full-time education. Many young people in Lancaster and elsewhere may be forced out of full-time education because of this dreadful punitive tax.

Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour's proposed tax—he is quite right to say that it is a tax—is the most regressive of all taxes? Is it not typical of Labour to propose a tax that would attack the very people they profess to support—those most unable to help themselves? Is it not typical that the Labour party always goes not for the highest common factor, but for the lowest common denominator? Labour would tax to drive people down, and in this case it would drive down their education.

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend, in an intervention on his birthday—we all wish him well—is absolutely right.
Removing £10.80 a week from the families of those with children between 16 and 18 in full-time education would be proportionately more damaging to those on lower incomes. Those who are extremely well-off may not miss it so much, but it would target everybody between 16 and 18. It is important that everybody should have access to child benefit irrespective of their means, as there is an important principle at stake.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour is proposing essentially a dog in the manger tax? The Labour party is deeply resentful of hard-working middle classes scrimping and saving to keep their children at school. Penalising those people by £1,000 to keep one child in school for those precious two years to give them the opportunity of going from further education into university is frankly mean-spirited and unworthy, and I am delighted that my party opposes that policy with great vigour. Does my hon. Friend agree that we have to do away with that cheap attitude?

Mr. Evans: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is a tax of more than £1,000 over a two-year period, at a time when families would need the money most. I imagine that keeping 16 to 18-year-olds is most expensive, with all the designer clothes they demand.

Lady Olga Maitland: Trainers cost more than £100.

Mr. Evans: As my hon. Friend says, trainers cost more than £100.
A tax of £1,000 would be extremely damaging to many families. Child benefit is £10.80 a week, or about £560 a year per child. That would make a difference to a youngster either staying at school or being forced to get a job, especially as 90 per cent. of expenditure on child benefit goes to families on middle and low incomes. Opposition Members may concentrate on the minute percentage of families with very high incomes and ask why they should receive child benefit, but the vast majority of families are on middle or low incomes.
That is the reason for the existence of child benefit. Its success lies in its simplicity, as demonstrated by the fact that almost 100 per cent. of mothers who are entitled to claim it do so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Fabricant) said, the poorer the parents are, the more important it is as a percentage of their income.
The bogey that is thrown up time and again by the Labour party is that a small number of families with children at fee-paying schools are able to claim it. Let us look at the figures. Some 75,000 of the 1.1 million youngsters whose families receive child benefit are at fee-paying schools—about 10 per cent. of 17-year-olds in full-time education. That is a small price to pay to ensure that the bulk of the money goes to those at whom it is targeted.
Many children who attend independent schools are on grants bursaries or scholarships. The fact that they attend independent or private schools is no clear indicator of the wealth of the family. They may have been fortunate enough to be able to gain a bursary, a grant or an assisted

place. The removal of child benefit would not only be a tax on fortune, but a tax on the good fortune of the families of children who gain places at those schools, if that is the education they want for them. Again we see Labour returning to its familiar pattern of the politics of envy.
To take the benefit away from those people and target it on those who earn considerably less would be almost impossible without creating additional costs, and thus balancing out any perceived gains. There would have to be massive bureaucracy to put in place the social engineering of the Opposition.
According to the Coalition for Child Benefit:
Child benefit is cheap to administer with such costs taking only 2 per cent. of its overall budget".
Any other way of administering child benefit would cost much more, and that would surely defeat the desired object of the exercise for the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown).
Although child benefit was introduced by the Opposition during their last Administration—I emphasise the word "last"—it was supported in principle by all parties, and has been supported in the past even by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East, the Labour party
 now wants to remove it.
In the Conservative consultation paper "Reform of Social Security", published in 1985, the Government committed themselves to keeping child benefit, and reaffirmed that commitment in the 1992 manifesto, even though they had made a detailed study of the alternatives. The document explained:
The first aim in helping families is to provide help generally, while the second is to provide extra help for low-income families. It would be a serious mistake to confuse these quite distinct purposes or to seek to restructure benefit design to meet one aim at the expense of another aim.
That is especially true today, and the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East was in favour of increasing the benefit at the time of the consultation document. He said in an Opposition Day debate on 27 June 1985:
Child benefit could be doubled or at least raised by £6 … An increase in child benefit … would be a … cost-effective way … to ease family poverty".—[Official Report, 27 June 1985; Vol. 81, c. 1122.]
If it was right then, what has changed now?
Originally, child benefit was seen as having three main advantages over the provisions it replaced—the child tax allowance and the family allowances. First, it helped those families that did not benefit from child tax allowance because they did not earn enough money to pay tax; secondly, it was payable for the first child and was tax-free; thirdly, it put the money for the care of the child directly into the hands of the mother. For some mothers, it may be the only reliable source of income, if they do not have access to their husbands' earnings, for whatever reason. Those advantages remain true today, and affect only the children they were meant for. The proposals of the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East would inevitably take those advantages away.
I know that not every member of the people's party believes that parents should be clobbered in this way. Indeed, such a betrayal of families will come very hard to some Opposition Members. It will be interesting to see whether they, too, sacrifice their principles in the pursuit of power. For example, the hon. Members for Brent, East


(Mr. Livingstone) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—who would have thought that I would ever utilise those characters as part of my defence?—would support my arguments. In a letter to The Guardian of 23 April this year, they wrote:
the party leadership needs to stand by its past pledges to retain Child Benefit in full".
They are right.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): In quoting that senior Labour source, my hon. Friend has put his finger on the nub of the debate. If there is no case for child benefit for 16, 17 and 18-year-olds, is that not the thin end of the wedge? Surely, if there is no case for child benefit for that age group, the whole principle of universal child benefit is undermined by Labour's proposals.

Mr. Evans: Absolutely. The philosophy and the principle are at stake, not just the provision of child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds. If the proposal is implemented, everything else will be up for grabs.
Another Opposition Member who agrees with our position is the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn). He wrote in the Evening Standard on 19 April:
I know of many young people and families who rely on Child Benefit to help them out and enable them to continue in education.
He is right. According to the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the loss of child benefit as a universal benefit would create a poverty trap by making it more economically worth while for low-income mothers to give up their jobs and claim benefits. He, too, is right.
A quarter of families currently receiving child benefit for children aged between 16 and 18 are claiming other income-related benefits. The change could result in members of families that formerly enjoyed child benefit, but who are now just above the threshold to receive the new upgraded level, deciding that it is more worth while to give up work and collect benefits. New Labour would create a new poverty trap.
The loss of working people would have two obvious results. First, unemployment queues would increase substantially; secondly, a much bigger burden would be placed on the taxpayer as more people claimed other benefits.
The existence of a benefits system that encourages people to live off the state is exactly the kind of poverty trap that we should be striving to eradicate. Surely this cannot be the way in which we want to run our welfare state. We need to get people to stay in education rather than taking the option of becoming unemployed because short-sighted politicians have foolishly made that more economically rewarding. The fact that child benefit is not taken away if a family's overall income goes up could act as a work incentive, but it certainly is not a disincentive to work hard, earn overtime and so forth.
Sally Witcher, director of the Child Poverty Action Group, has also come out against plans to reform child benefit. On 19 April, in a press release, she said:
If you remove Child Benefit, how are young people's basic needs going to be met? We recognise the value of training and education but we don't want the benefit taken away".
Several alternatives have been discussed at one point or another, but none is as effective as child benefit. What about means testing, for example? It would ensure that

take-up rates for the benefit fell, even among those on low incomes, because—for whatever reason—some would see it as degrading. They might decide not to bother to claim the benefit, feeling that it would seem as though they were sponging. They would not be, however. That is the one thing that child benefit gets over.
Means testing would achieve the aim of saving money in one area, because people would not be claiming the benefit, but it would be a false economy. Children would have to leave school, and some would claim other benefits—income-related benefits, or even the dole. What is at stake is not just child benefit for a few rich kids; it is the principle that is under fire. The very soul of the child benefit system is under attack.
Moreover, as the Minister has said, means testing would be only the thin end of the wedge. If the philosophy is to remove child benefit from 16 to 18-year-olds and target families with lower incomes, why stop at 16? What about 14, or even 12? In fact, if the principle is right, why impose any age limit?
Is this the secret agenda on which we are about to embark? Will the proposal be aimed not just at 16 to 18-year-olds to save £700 million, but at every family in the land? If that happens, and child benefit is means-tested, the vast majority of families will be under direct attack, and will lose a universal benefit that they treasure.

Lady Olga Maitland: Would not means testing be an extremely divisive way of going about our business? We should have to work out the level at which to carry out the means test, which in itself would prompt a big debate. If the level is too high, we shall be chucking money across the country, when a broadly based system would be far fairer. Alternatively, only a small number of people will receive a bloated sum, leaving a marginalised group desperate and unable to keep their children on at school. Means testing was a much hated system; how can the Labour party possibly want to bring it back?

Mr. Evans: I agree. The level at which the system is introduced will be important, because, whatever it happens to be, some people will be just above it. That is where the new poverty trap comes in. I suspect that the means test will be so punitive that many people will be drawn into that trap. This is nothing more than a raid on the wallets of families: it is stealing £10.80 from mothers' purses, week in, week out. We must stop it.
Today it is child benefit; what state benefit will be targeted next? Where will Labour turn its spotlight? Although the hon. Member for Dunfermline, East has said that Labour has no plans to introduce means testing of child benefit as a whole, his record is lamentable. As his shadow Treasury gains in strength, who knows what other U-turns in Labour policy he will have up his sleeve?
Other alternatives that have been suggested include child care allowances and taxing child benefit. Both ideas are fatally flawed, the first because it would not help children whose parents are not working, the second because it would introduce anomalies and divert resources from the intended target—the children.
It is obvious that changing the child benefit system by means of some form of tax mechanism will inevitably disadvantage some children, especially given that child benefit took the place of the discredited child tax


allowance in the first place. To abolish it for those who wish to continue their education would be the equivalent of imposing a selective tax increase of 5p in the pound on the average family with one child aged between 16 and 18. Furthermore, tax allowances simply add to the family income as a whole, rather than producing specific sums of cash for children, as child benefit does.
Another downside of taxing child benefit has been pointed out by various people, including the Child Poverty Action Group. Taxing the benefit for higher earners would cut right across the important principle of individual taxation for men and women. It would fail in the end, simply because a non-working wife would not be affected even if her husband was earning £100,000 a year. Or will that principle be up for grabs as well?
To change a benefit which, it is almost universally agreed, works where, when and how it should, and to introduce the failed mechanism that it replaced originally, is nothing short of madness. Child benefit offers the only easy, clear and effective way of providing an incentive for children to stay at school after the age of 16, and we should not throw it away.
Child benefit provides all our youngsters with an incentive to continue their education, irrespective of the means of their families. It provides an extra £560 a year, which for those youngsters could mean the difference between staying at school and being forced out to get a job before they wish to. Child benefit is successful, because nearly 100 per cent. of mothers collect it. It is simple, clear and effective. Withdrawing it would be like imposing an extra 5p in the pound in tax on average incomes. This proposal is ill thought out, and should be chucked out.
If our youngsters do not get the education they deserve, and if families do not get the support that is their right, it will not just be the youngsters and their families who suffer, but all of us. This country will suffer for years as this spiteful act of small-minded envy works its way through the system.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I am completely opposed to the withdrawal of child benefit from 16 to 18-year-olds, but Conservative Members would be wrong to think that that means that I am with them on this issue. I was interested that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) did not attempt to use my name in support of his argument, although, as a neighbour of mine, he knows my views. I am here to make my views clear, and I will not allow them to be distorted by Conservative Members.
So far, the debate has been absolutely fascinating, and I shall treasure the Hansard report. Conservative Members have given a commitment to universal benefits, referred to "our welfare state" and come out against targeting, giving a good explanation of its drawbacks and disadvantages. It is unusual to hear those views from Conservative Members, who normally tell us about the advantages of targeting. It is Labour Members who usually talk about the administrative costs, unfairness and lack of take-up of targeted benefits. There has now been a conversion, and it is the Government who are in favour of universal benefits. I shall look at the future utterances of Conservative Members on this subject with great interest.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Lady Olga Maitland) said that Labour would bring back the hated means test, but I can tell her that it has never gone away. Means test after means test is carried out in pursuit of that darling of the Conservative party, targeting. If Conservative Members are to debate the matter convincingly, they will have to do more homework. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley suggested that the proposal to remove child benefit might lead to youngsters claiming the dole, but they cannot do so. The Government have waged war on 16 to 18-year-olds and their families, and I say that advisedly.
The hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked about Labour's meanness towards what he referred to as "old-age pensioners"; the modern term, I believe, is "retirement pensioners". That is rich from the Tory party, one of whose first acts in office was to ensure that retirement pensioners would no longer share in any increase in national prosperity, by breaking the link between pensions and earnings. That immense attack has cost pensioners dear, year after year. We are not talking about one frozen Christmas bonus, but about pensioners receiving less, week after week, year after year. If the hon. Gentleman is going to delve into history, he should do so a little better.
I am very much in favour of social justice and the maintenance of essential public spending, but it is news to me that that spirit motivates the Secretary of State for Social Security. If so, why was an order laid before the House on Friday concerning the withdrawal of mobility allowance from people in NHS care? I am pleased to see that the order is to be prayed against by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
That allowance has been accepted as necessary for vulnerable people since its inception about 20 years ago—it was, of course, introduced by a Labour Government. Some £40 million will be saved by an act of meanness that will affect children, as well as adults, and the most vulnerable 16 to 18-year-olds who are unable to work because of disability. If they happen to be in NHS care, bang goes their mobility allowance. Then the Conservatives have the nerve to accuse Labour of meanness and to claim that they stand for social justice.
A distinct ignorance about young people has been shown in the debate. When child benefit was introduced—and family allowance before it—it did not extend to youngsters over 16 who left school or full-time education, because it was assumed, correctly, that they were going to work. If they were at work, they would have an income, would be making a contribution to the family budget, and would have some money left over for themselves. They would therefore not be treated as dependent children.
Youngsters who leave school now have no income, and that has introduced unfairness into the system. My hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are wrong if they think that the way in which to deal with that is to remove, or partially remove, the payment of child benefit.
We must ensure that young people and their families are not left without income. But the claimed lack of universality of the benefit arose because, at the time it was introduced, it was not necessary to go on paying those youngsters child benefit, because they would be going to work. Later, it was thought that youngsters in that age group would receive training and a training allowance. So


a youngster could be at school or in full-time education and getting child benefit; in training and receiving an allowance; or in work and getting wages.
It is unfortunate that work has just about disappeared for 16 to 18-year-olds, and training and training allowances are woefully inadequate. Not enough suitable training is available, and some 16 to 18-year-olds are left in limbo. That matter should be addressed, and my hon. Friends intend to do so. I give them full credit for reviewing the situation; the Government do not review or consult—they simply act against young people.
The review will have caused my hon. Friends to concentrate their minds because of the strong objection to the removal of child benefit from Opposition Back Benchers and from within the Labour movement. But Labour's opposition comes from people who are consistent in their determination to safeguard the rights of young people, whereas the Conservative party is simply engaging in some mischievous politics to try to stir up trouble.
I can assure Conservative Members that there is no need for them to tell Labour Members how to make their views on the matter clear to Opposition Front Benchers—we will do so. We know, however, that they are acting with good intentions. The intent of our Front-Bench spokesmen is to ensure greater provision for 16 to 18-year-olds. I could give them a few suggestions, which would not be popular with Conservative Members, about how to get the funds to do that. However, we are in the process of discussing that.
There is no harm in a review, as long as it is undertaken with an open mind and a listening ear. I am sure that our Front-Bench spokesmen will say that that is the spirit of the review. I hope that we will quickly bury the notion of an attack on child benefit.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The hon. Lady suggests that she wants increased expenditure. That money must come from somewhere else. Does she back the proposal by Labour Members to cut defence expenditure by £4.5 billion? If she does, what impact would that have on British Aerospace in her constituency, where there are many defence procurement jobs?

Mrs. Wise: Come on, that is more mischief making. This is not a defence debate. You would soon come down on me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I tried to turn it into one. I am on very good terms with the British Aerospace work force, as the hon. Gentleman knows. This is not the place for a constituency squabble between us. We can do that elsewhere in so far as it is worth doing at all—which is not very far. This matter does not affect only our constituencies, but young people at large. We must get back to that.
Young people cannot get jobs or, often, suitable training. They are treated with contempt. They cannot get social security payments. Even a pregnant 16-year-old is not entitled to financial recognition of the fact that she is unemployed. She has to prove that she is not only 16 and pregnant but suffering from severe hardship before she gets a penny out of the Government. From the party of the family, that is quite remarkable. We often get remarkable demonstrations of the meaning of "party of the family" through its impact on real families. To me, a pregnant 16-year-old has problems, and is already suffering hardship.
For the linguistic education of Conservative Members, I might say that the concept of "hardship" includes the concept of "severity". I once spoke for 20 minutes on that very point, but I shall not do so this morning.
I remind Conservative Members that they inflict such things even on pregnant 16-year-olds. They tell them to go on training schemes. They tell the people running training schemes to take such girls for three or four months, knowing that they will not be able to pursue it, that it dilutes the training scheme and is a waste of everyone's time and money.
However, unless a girl proves severe hardship—which, as I said, means that she must prove that her condition is doubly severe—she will not get a penny. Such youngsters cannot claim the dole. Even in that extremity, the Government have no compassion, and do not recognise what young women in that situation need. To me, a 16-year-old pregnant girl is in deep trouble, and her unborn baby needs to come into a world in which his or her mother has not been driven into more and more poverty as well as being over-young.
I have put that to Conservative Members, for instance, during Select Committee inquiries. On one notable occasion, I was given a shrug as an answer when I pointed it out. I have been told that such girls can go to local authorities. The sudden interest of Conservative Members in the plight of 16-year-olds would carry more weight if it was a little more regular, widespread and consistent and a lot more honest.

Lady Olga Maitland: The hon. Lady has been going on about the unfairness of the system and how 16-year-olds who are pregnant and suffering hardship cannot get support. The latest published figures, for 1995, show that they get very good support—79 per cent. of those who apply for hardship payments get them. That amounts to 111,000 young people. How can she suggest that their plight is being ignored?

Mrs. Wise: A pregnant 16-year-old should not have to prove that she is in severe hardship. The fact that 79 per cent. of them go through that charade and prove that their trouble brings severe hardship only illustrates the problems that face young people and the peculiarity of the Government's approach.
Conservative Members, from the humblest Back Bencher—such as the hon. Member for Ribble Valley—to the Prime Minister, have no regard for the welfare state. The welfare state is our welfare state, and that of the people of Britain. It is not the Government's welfare state, except in so far as they unfortunately have a great deal of power to destroy, distort and damage it, which they regularly do.
This debate was instituted not out of care for young people and their families but to make political mischief. I do not think that it will succeed. Labour is having a civilised look at provision for 16 to 18-year-olds with the intention of producing better arrangements.
I am prepared to show my Front-Bench colleagues that one option that was mentioned should be abandoned, but it was first raised in a throwaway manner. I have studied the speech of my hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor. Its thrust was different from that suggested by the reports that came out. In so far as those reports were accurate, I think


that it will prove to be a temporary aberration, because the whole Labour movement is showing our Front-Bench spokesmen that it would be a mistake.
However, reviewing provision is not a mistake. To review the situation of the children of unskilled manual workers who leave education with no qualifications with the intention of improving it is good. I will forgive one or two mistakes along the way as long as they are corrected in due time, as I am sure they will be.
Let Conservative Members focus their beady eyes on the Secretary of State for Social Security. Let them consider the attack on those on family credit which will come into force on 2 July. People on family credit with 16-year-old children who leave school will cease getting family credit instantly, instead of having it run to the end of the six-month period. There are problems with that. It might be said that they have ceased to have a dependent child in the family, but that is not so. The 16-year-old will not cease to be dependent, and will not have an income, as I have explained.
The family will have to say whether the child will return to school in September, but they may not know. Some families may lose their family credit, then their child returns to school after all. Will they get a refund? Others may claim family credit thinking that their child will return to school, but, by September, some other thing has supervened and they will no longer be entitled to family credit. Will they be accused of having claimed unfairly?
All such matters are, of course, beyond the scrutiny of Conservative Members, who would be well advised to focus their attention on their own party's attacks on 16 to 18-year-olds in particular and the welfare state generally.

Lady Olga Maitland: Over the past few weeks, young people in their hundreds of thousands have been going into their school examination halls to sit A-levels. More students have been sitting A-levels than ever before in British history. They have been doing so with the justifiable aspiration to go on to further education and university to improve themselves. They have been able to do that because their parents have been receiving child benefit, which is worth, over two years, £1,000. It keeps children in education to improve their chances instead of having to try their luck in an unskilled world. The Government are trying to improve young people's chances, not hinder them.
The proposed removal of child benefit is a sixth form tax; it is punitive. Those who are being punished are the young people on whom our hopes and the good of the country rely. We do not want to return to the dark ages of throwing them into low-paid work. We want to give them the opportunity to improve themselves, and we want to facilitate their progress.
Labour's muddled, totally misconceived scheme attacks the wrong people. Of course we want to support those who in the lowest incomes groups, and they have such support. Labour's scheme attacks hard-working, middle-class parents who scrimp and save and do everything possible to give their children the chances that they themselves never had. The Conservative party is giving such people that chance. As I said in an

intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), this sixth form tax is a dog in the manger tax, killing chances and opportunities.
Surely it is more important to ensure that, at a vital stage in many young people's lives, they are properly skilled in the three Rs. We are living in a very competitive world. For Britain to have a chance to compete in the world, we must ensure that we have the best skills and the most educated people available. We are not part of the unfortunate skivvy world of third-world nations. We want to ensure that we can compete in the most effective way, and we must therefore prepare our young accordingly.
The other day, I spoke to the headmaster of one of the schools in Sutton—John Vaughan of Cheam high school. The school is interesting and non-selective, and aims to help what I call master and miss average—not obviously academic high flyers. Such young people are being given chances that their parents never had. The school is pushing them forward and giving them the chance to go on to higher education and improve themselves.
They are not children of wealthy parents. The headmaster said that the parents were alarmed at the thought that child benefit, which is essential to keep their children supplied with equipment, clothing and support, could be withdrawn. It would be a tragedy to throw the chances of such children away on a half-baked scheme, when he or she could be the one child in three who goes on to university.
The Labour party is staggering and faltering because even its own Back Benchers do not believe in the proposed scheme. It is salutary that the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) began her speech by asking for the withdrawal of the mad idea.

Mrs. Wise: That is far too free a paraphrase.

Lady Olga Maitland: Well, the hon. Lady did not say "mad idea".
However, the Labour party's approach is confused and muddled; it cannot make up its mind. If it is trying to help young people into training, it should get it right. It is getting it so wrong in trying to force employers to enter training schemes that represent disincentives to taking on young people. We should consider examples on the continent. When one goes down the road of artificially forcing employers to enter such schemes, costs of employment rise, and all that happens is that young people do not get jobs.
It is worth noting that, for instance, in France, youth unemployment is 27 per cent., and in Spain it is 38 per cent. That compares with 15 per cent. in this country. The Government are getting the economy right, and ensuring that they do not shackle employers with the minimum wage.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party is somewhat dishonest in trying to paint the picture that it wants to support people on low wages and middle-income earners? Leaflets and literature are distributed that say:
New Labour, new Britain.
Taxes which are fair for all and do not hit middle and low income families hardest.


That is what Labour is saying to the public, but we know what it is doing. If it removes child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds, families earning low to middle incomes will be hit hardest.

Lady Olga Maitland: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. In essence, the Labour party is covering its tracks. It is being dishonest and deceitful, and trying to lead the country by the nose. At the end of the day, the electorate will give a very clear message to Labour. They will say, "No, no and no again. We want to preserve our children's chances. We do not want to be faced with more punitive taxes." Such taxes are the hallmark of the Labour party. I believe without any doubt that the country will reject the Labour party's daft notions—today and in future.

Ms Liz Lynne: I am grateful for a chance to debate child benefit, and I thank the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) for raising it. The Labour party is obviously in total turmoil about child benefit. It does not know what to do about it, especially for 16 to 18-year-olds.
It is not the first time that the Labour party has been in turmoil over child benefit. Twenty years ago, it announced that it would not introduce child benefit for three years, despite the passing of the Child Benefit Act 1975. It introduced child benefit only when the reasons for the delay were made public. The Cabinet minutes about the postponement were leaked to New Society. The magazine's headline read:
Killing a commitment—the Cabinet v Children".
The magazine revealed that the reasons for the delay were that the Labour party was concerned about the cost, and the fact that the money would be paid to the mother. Of course, under child tax allowance, the money had been paid to the man. It was also revealed that the Labour party's other concern was that the trade union movement was not keen on the idea, and the movement's alienation could not be risked. When the Labour party's views were made public—it thought that they never would be—it suddenly decided that it had to change, and change quickly. So child benefit has never had the full enthusiastic support of the entire Labour party. We can see those divisions reopening in the current dispute.
The question is whether the Labour party is serious about retaining child benefit as a universal benefit. It currently argues that child benefit is paid to wealthy mothers whose 16 to 18-year-olds go to public schools. It argues that there are better ways to use taxpayers' money. If that is its case for scrapping the benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds, surely the case is the same for scrapping it for all children. That would be a case for bringing in means testing. The Labour party cannot use the argument it has deployed about 16 to 18-year-olds without following it through.
The Labour party must also accept that it is not cheap to feed, clothe and house 16 to 18-year-olds. I am afraid that many families will say to their children once they reach the age of 16, "We cannot afford to keep you any longer. You will have to go out and try to find work." That is what I fear will happen, not just in poorer families, but in families across the board. I wish that the Labour party would change its mind.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) will say that it is the Opposition's policy to help those in greatest need. The abolition of child benefit, which is paid to the mother, will not do that. Any means testing will cause some in greatest need not to claim the benefit, and administration costs will absolutely soar. I honestly do not believe that any money will be saved by redistributing it anywhere else, especially when one considers the administration costs.
Child benefit has many, many advantages. It is still guaranteed to those in work and out of it. It helps to overcome the poverty trap. That is another reason why I am extremely worried about the Labour party proposal, because it will create, yet again, a new poverty trap. If one has to claim for child benefit, a stigma will be attached to it. Because it is a universal benefit, there is little evidence of benefit fraud. The Labour party must change its mind—I mean those on the Opposition Front Bench, because I know very well that many of their colleagues on the Back Benches are totally opposed to scrapping child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds.
The Conservative party must also make clear its commitment to child benefit as a universal benefit, and say that it will increase it each and every year in line with inflation. I would like the Minister to make that commitment today.
Child benefit is vital, and any plans to scrap it for 16 to 18-year-olds make no sense and have been broadly condemned. Child Poverty Action Group played a vital role in introducing child benefit in the late 1970s. In response to the Labour party proposal on child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds, it has said:
We welcome the recognition of the importance of education and training for young people, but it is vital not to ignore the immediate basic needs of those on low incomes. The fact remains that you cannot eat education, wear it or heat your home with it.
I think that the CPAG has made my case.

Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the debate, and congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on introducing it, because, whatever his motives, there is a need for fresh thinking about that important age group of 16 to 18-year-olds. Some important points have been made.
Fresh thinking is required, because a number of significant trends and developments have affected that group of young people since the mid-1970s. One need only go back to that time to discover that six out of 10 children left school at 16 and found jobs. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) reminded us of that. Today, of course, only a small proportion of that age group are in employment. The great majority are in education and training, but too many are unemployed or unskilled, and often ill equipped for the jobs that are on offer in a modern economy.
Policy must therefore be based on two things first and foremost. First, we must analyse the characteristics of that age group. Who are they? Where are they in terms of education and employment? Secondly, we need to assess how current policy and practice impacts on that group of young people.
Although today's debate has been wide-ranging, it is essentially about child benefit. We should therefore ask questions particularly about the impact of child benefit on 16 to 18-year-olds.
Child benefit goes to those in full-time education. Currently, according to the figures I have, 56 per cent. of 16 to 18-year-olds are in full-time education—that includes 71 per cent. of 16-year-olds; 58 per cent. of 17-year-olds and 38 per cent. of 18-year-olds. Of that entire age group, 17 per cent. are in maintained schools; 35 per cent.—a significant proportion—are in further or higher education, and 4 per cent. are in independent schools.
Of course, a large proportion of young people do not stay on in education, and that inevitably correlates with their income and socio-economic status. In simple terms, poorer children are less likely to stay on in education. The youth cohort study for England and Wales for 1994 found that, whereas 85 per cent. of 16-year-olds from managerial and professional families were in full-time education and an equally large proportion—83 per cent.—from other non-manual families, that proportion declined to 61 per cent. of children from semi-skilled and manual families and 56 per cent. of children from unskilled manual families. Those facts alone represent major challenges for public policy.
Current policy includes a range of options—significantly, child benefit. Obviously, as that benefit is paid after the age 16 only to those families with children in full-time education, it follows that the distribution of child benefit resources is skewed. That means that, while a child from a high-income family in full-time education receives child benefit, a family supporting an unemployed 16-year-old receives no child benefit.
As for other options, the policy governing the education maintenance allowances is frankly a mess, because there is no rationale or fairness to it. The amount paid in those allowances ranges from just 90p a week in some local authorities to as much as £20 a week in others. In some local education authorities, as few as one child in 1,000 receives education maintenance allowances.
Similar problems are apparent in the provision of grants. At present, some 16-year-olds receive grants for their fees while others do not, but they are taking exactly the same educational courses. Again, there is no uniformity nationally, and the policy is in a mess. Some young people have their fees paid for courses, while others do not.
What about youth training schemes? We all understand that young people need to take training seriously and that that training must be of a high quality. It must be successful and effective. According to Sir Ron Dearing, just 46 per cent. of young people who enter youth training schemes complete their course of study. In Merseyside, 72 per cent. of those who start such courses fail to complete them. In Sunderland, that figure is 66 per cent. Only one in five training and enterprise areas has a completion rate better than 50 per cent. I put it to the House that that is a pathetic record.

Lady Olga Maitland: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, far from having a so-called pathetic record, the youth training scheme has been an enormous success? Is he not aware that 80 per cent. of those who complete youth training courses go on to jobs? Surely that is a success.

Mr. Wicks: I am pleased that many of those who complete their courses find jobs; that is the purpose of the

scheme. To be fair, the hon. Lady must be extremely concerned that less than half those who start youth training courses complete them. I use the word "pathetic" because something is wrong with the quality of the courses.
Faced with these facts, and given the immense challenges facing policy for young people, can anyone say that resources are currently being spent effectively and equitably? Are policies encouraging young people to pursue their education or to enter training courses? We consider those questions to be vital, so we have announced a review of policies and resources for children post-16.
The review will examine the whole range of post-16 finance and policy, including grants, fees, discretionary allowances, education maintenance allowances and child benefit. The Government are seldom able to look effectively at policies across Departments—we are doing that through this review, in shadow government.
Despite the scaremongering from the Government Benches this morning, the Labour party has no intention of interfering with child benefit for children under the age of 16. The Labour party initiated the child benefit scheme—in fact, the great pioneer Eleanor Rathbone was the founding mother of family allowances in this country. The Labour party is committed to child benefit as a universal payment, not least because it is an income for mothers. Let there be no scaremongering about that.

Mr. Nigel Evans: If the Labour party is opposed to parents who are wealthy or on high incomes getting child benefit for children aged between 16 and 18, why does it not hold the same view in relation to wealthy parents with children below the age of 16?

Mr. Wicks: Those below 16 are children; those between the ages of 16 and 18 are in a vital transition period through childhood, into adolescence and then into adulthood. We are talking about a range of policies—education, training and social security—that impact on that age group. I have argued that, at the moment, those policies are ineffective, and that is the case for a review—we want something better, fairer and more effective. No decisions have been made because the review is currently under way. It would be wrong to pre-empt any options at this stage.
I believe that the review represents a major step forward. It shows that the Labour party is not complacent about the position facing many young people in Britain today. I think I heard the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security say that we have had four years—by golly, the Government have had more years than that, and look at the mess that we are in.
It is sensible to examine the use of existing resources to see how they are being spent and whether they can be spent more effectively. The review deals with some substantive and complex matters. The prime concerns of the review are to encourage and enable significantly more young people to enter education or training, and equip them to take their place in the employment market in a modern, complex and challenging world. The review is


about offering support to young people and their families, and about producing a coherent system that operates uniformly across the nation.

Ms Lynne: Does that mean that the Labour party is committed to restoring benefits to those aged between 16 and 18?

Mr. Wicks: There is no point in us undertaking a review if we know all the answers before the review. We are looking rigorously at the resources and the policies, so that, when we take our place in government, we will have the policies that Britain needs.
I have welcomed the debate with great enthusiasm because it enables us to remind the House of the Tory record on child benefit. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley—who clearly has a dry sense of humour— presented the Tory party as the party of child benefit. That is one of the better jokes we have heard in the House in an already somewhat whimsical week for the Tory party.
The Government's record on child benefit includes a three-year freeze on the level of child benefit in the late 1980s. Today, Conservative Members have posed as the champions of the family and of child benefit. However, so committed were the Conservative Government to child benefit that they chose to freeze it for three consecutive years: 1987–88, 1988–89 and 1989–90. This was a withering on the vine strategy. The Government thought that, if they could get away with freezing the benefit, it would disappear and be replaced by the means-tested family credit.
How does that square with what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley had to say today about the universality of child benefit and his critique of means tests? When he was a parliamentary candidate and Conservative activist in the late 1980s, did he have the courage to attack the Conservative Government because of the freeze of child benefit? I suspect not.
Nigel Lawson was the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time. In his memoirs, he was remarkably candid about the strategy. He stated:
The argument was that help should be concentrated on the poorest families—which meant that what mattered was not the indiscriminate Child Benefit, but the means-tested Family Credit.
I wonder what the hon. Member for Ribble Valley has to say about that? Nigel Lawson continued:
Needless to say, having established the principle, John Major (the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury) … with my strong backing, was anxious to consolidate it with a further Child Benefit freeze".
That was the strategy of today's Prime Minister. The Government froze benefits—they had a frozen heart about social policy. The policy was implemented by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer and by his loyal Chief Secretary—today's Prime Minister.
This policy, mean-minded as it was, was changed only because of the force of public opinion, led by attacks from the Labour party. The so-called party of the family, after its three-year freeze-up, was forced to increase the rate of this key family benefit. In 1991, child benefit was uprated, and the Conservative party had to commit itself to raising benefits in line with inflation. Why did this happen in 1991? Because a general election was forthcoming—for political reasons, they had a change of heart.
Mrs. Thatcher, the then Prime Minister, was hardly happy about this, as she revealed in her memoirs—they all write memoirs. She stated in her memoirs—I am sure that Government Members know every passage off by heart:
This sum was paid—tax free—to many families whose incomes were such that they did not really need it, and it was very expensive.
She would have preferred a reform that included child tax allowances.
More recently, the No Turning Back Group—which includes the hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), for Chingford (Mr. Duncan Smith), for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin), for Milton Keynes, South-West (Mr. Legg) and for Colchester, South and Maldon (Mr. Whittingdale)—issued a paper on the welfare state. They are the welfare state sceptic wing of the party.
What did these five social philosophers have to say about child benefit? Did they agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley? No, they did not. They stated in their pamphlet of 1993:
We believe that the full up-rating of Child Benefit … is unsustainable.
That is the view of the hard right of the British Conservative party. It is certainly different from what we have heard today. So much for the Tory party posing as the friends of child benefit.
The Labour party faces the future with confidence—Government members should watch the next election to see how confident we are. We propose a review, for positive social and educational reasons. We care about British families and their children. In contrast, the Conservatives are never less convincing than when they pose as the defenders of the family. When the Tories pose as the friends of child benefit, mothers should hold their purses tightly, and parents should ensure that their children are safely tucked up in bed. The Conservative party has attacked the family; the Labour party will defend it. That is why we need a review.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): As the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. Wicks) said, this is a timely debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) has done a service to the House in introducing the debate: it can examine the extent to which the thinking of the Labour party on this most important area of public policy has progressed since the debate on 17 May. As is becoming increasingly clear, the answer is that it has not progressed at all.
We absolve the Labour Front-Bench spokesman from any guilt, because he is far too intelligent to believe in that absurd proposal. To use a military metaphor—there was reference to defence earlier in the debate—he has laid down smoke, and not addressed the proposal that we are discussing today. He is simply the hapless Labour spokesman who must come to the Chamber today to defend it.
The proposal lies alongside Labour's much-vaunted social security review, which has been revealed as a sham and a shambles. The Leader of the Opposition urged his social security team to think the unthinkable, but I am


sure that those hon. Members could not have dreamt that such an unspeakable proposition would emerge. To be fair to the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith)—who is my Member of Parliament when I am in London—it is not entirely the fault of him and his colleagues. He has had to endure an ill thought-out intervention from his colleagues in the shadow Treasury team.
Virtually no Labour Members defend the proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley referred to the Labour Members of Parliament who live in or near Islington and to their comments about the scheme. The hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms Lynne)—with whom I usually never agree—eloquently highlighted the foolishness of Labour's proposal. Although the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) was not keen on my hon. Friend's argument, in a concise and a withering attack, she dismissed the thinking—if one could call it that—of her own Front Bench. She has the courage to say publicly in the House what her Back-Bench colleagues are saying in the highways and byways of Westminster.
It is important to examine where this absurd proposal has come from. It is wrong in principle, profoundly unfair in practice, based on inaccurate information, and likely to achieve the opposite result to that which is intended. On 17 April, the shadow Chancellor announced plans to abolish the child benefit for 16 to 18-year-olds for the purpose of providing additional educational opportunities to children from less well-off families. It seems this week that young people would receive up to £20 per week to encourage them to stay on at school.
Whatever the plan, Labour's policy is founded on the assertion that 80 per cent. of children with unskilled parents leave school at age 16. It would be shameful if the Government had presided over such a record. Some 20 years ago—after four years of a Labour Administration—those figures prevailed. However, the figure today is 56 per cent. Last year, 72 per cent. of 16-year-olds stayed on at school or further education—an increase from 42 per cent. in 1979–80. Almost 90 per cent. of all 16-year-olds now take part in education or training—five percentage points higher than four years ago.
As my hon. Friends have said, Labour's proposal would take away £560 per year from families with one child. That sum would not be returned to taxpayers, in whole or in part, through lower taxes. Therefore, it is effectively a tax increase equivalent to a 5p increase in the standard rate of tax for families on average earnings. It is Labour's teenage tax. Labour Members who are always keen to suggest that our provision is deficient in comparison with that of other European Union states should note that removing child benefit would make the United Kingdom the only country in Europe that did not provide assistance to families with 16 to 18-year-olds in non-advanced education.
It is an understatement to say that the response to the initial proposal was critical. It was criticised by other Opposition spokesmen who had not been consulted, and it was roundly condemned by Back Benchers on both sides of the House in early-day motions. The Child Poverty Action Group opposed the proposal, and correspondence columns in the newspapers showed that the public were profoundly unimpressed. In fact, apart from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow

Chancellor, the only person to support the proposal was the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane)—a man whose good sense is clearly exceeded by his ambition.
It was then suggested that child benefit be withdrawn only from those children at fee-paying schools. That idea was also based on erroneous statistics. We were told that 25 per cent. of 17-year-olds in education attend fee-paying schools, but the true figure is closer to 10 per cent. That is another miscalculation, by a margin of 150 per cent.
Parents naturally want to do the best for their children, and many make great sacrifices to send them to fee-paying schools. The children who attend such schools are not all from well-to-do families. The 75,000 families who would be affected by such a change include many of modest means. That is useful information, which proves that Labour has lost none of its malice and envy towards those who try to better their position and that of their children in that way. Young people must be supported while they stay on in education, and child benefit can make an important contribution in that regard.
As the hon. Member for Rochdale pointed out, child benefit may be crucial in determining whether young people from less well-off families stay in education to gain better qualifications that improve their prospects and life chances. Economic pressures may force many young people to leave school and enter the world of work prematurely. For example, child benefit for a 16-year-old contributes a healthy chunk of the income for a family that is just above the point where entitlement to income-related benefits runs out.
The absurdity of Labour's proposal to abolish child benefit is highlighted by its other proposal, to make it available to bogus asylum seekers. I recently received a letter from the Labour Nottinghamshire county council urging me to support Labour's amendment in another place to pay child benefit to the children of those who seek to enter this country illegally. In other words, Labour believes that ambitious young people from British families should be penalised, but that the children of those who come from overseas and have no right to remain in this country should retain child benefit.
It is not only young people in education who will be penalised: the Opposition's other policies would damage the opportunities available to any young person with ambition. Between now and the general election, the electorate must try to imagine what life would be like under a Labour Government. They should heed this warning: "Don't be young under Labour. Don't come from less well-off families. Don't try to better yourselves."
Labour's policies would hit people from five directions. First, they would hit those young people who want to stay on at school after the age of 16. As I have described today, Labour would take £560 from families by abolishing child benefit as a result of introducing the teenage tax. Secondly, Labour's policies would hit those young people who wish to leave school and enter employment. Labour's minimum wage would cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, as employers would find it more costly to hire new staff.
Thirdly, young people, who tend to earn low wages, would be hit the hardest. Those who choose to leave school and learn a trade would face many difficulties. At present, employers are taking on more young people as apprentices and training them in a practical and successful manner. Under Labour, employers would have to give


16 to 18-year-olds one paid day off a week—whether or not it suited their training needs. Labour would tell employers that they must give five days' pay for four days' work. Why should employers take on young people in those circumstances, when they could employ older people whom they could train in the manner which best suited the firm and the individual concerned?
Fourthly, young people will be damaged by the abolition of grants as a result of Labour's proposal to introduce a graduate tax. Fifthly, there is Labour's proposal for a curfew on young people, which even some Labour Front Benchers have rightly dismissed as crackers. Under that proposal, Labour would make it a police priority to catch youths, whether guilty or innocent. who are not in their homes after a certain time. Labour fails to understand that guilty youngsters, not the innocent. are the real problem. While the Government seek to crack down on the guilty with our tough law and order policies, Labour Members regularly vote against our proposals.
Conservative Members understand what young people need: they need to learn and we have helped them to learn. In 1979, one in eight young people went to university, now that figure is one in three. Young people need to work and we have helped them to work: since December 1992 unemployment has fallen by nearly 800,000. Young people need to learn a trade and we have helped them to do so: by the year 2000 there will be 150,000 modern apprentices with the right skills to succeed in the businesses of the next century.
What the hon. Member for Preston said about the opportunities available to 16 to 18-year-olds was a caricature of the reality; she painted the wrong picture. Young people do not need their opportunities abolished by a future Labour Government. As today's debate has shown, a Labour Government would be an unmitigated disaster for young people and we shall not hesitate to remind the electorate of that fact at every opportunity.

Drugs (Safety)

Dr. Jeremy Bray: The House has given a good deal of attention to the warning given by the Committee on Safety of Medicines on third generation oral contraceptives last October. The committee was right to hold the views and take the actions that it did, given the evidence available at that time. Certainly, there was, and is, a need to review the announcement procedure. Owing to the immediate public reaction, there was a deplorable jump in the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions. Sadly, some women ignored the committee's advice that no one need stop taking oral contraceptives and that women taking the third generation pill should see their doctors.
This morning, I wish to talk about the lessons to be learnt about the general arrangements for monitoring the safety of drugs. The second generation pill, which was introduced from 1970, greatly reduced the risk of a blood clot forming in the veins of the legs and moving to the lungs—a pulmonary embolism—with sometimes fatal consequences. Second generation pills are still in use today and the Committee on Safety of Medicines' letter of 18 October reported even lower risks in their use than had previously been observed.
During the 1970s, there began to be concern about other circulatory side effects. Large cohort studies by the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Oxford Family Planning Association found a slightly increased mortality from heart attacks and strokes, and found factors in those cases that increased the risk of the pill. With appropriate prescribing and lower dosage, the incidence of circulatory side effects and mortality were reduced to very low levels.
There is a large—and what was a profitable—market for the pill in the United Kingdom, but the patents and trade agreements in the second generation pills held by Schering and Wyeth and by Janssen-Cilag and Syntex began to run out in the 1980s and 1990s. The search was on for new patentable products aimed at further reducing risks and side effects. The risks had become too low to be picked up by the public cohort studies and public funds were not available for a wider form of monitoring of a research standard.
Researchers began to pay more attention to surrogate or proxy bio-chemical markers to represent the side effects of the pill. At the same time, there was a great deal of research on fats and cholesterol, and their effects on the circulatory system. The relationship of those effects to the use of oral contraceptive pills is somewhat distant: it depends on a connection between the effect of the pill on cholesterol and the effect of cholesterol on arterial disease. Most of the studies of cholesterol changes have been on middle-aged and elderly men, not many of whom are on the pill.
Before they experience the menopause, women have a particularly low rate of coronary heart disease. Pharmaceutical companies came up with third generation pills with new progestogens that are claimed to protect women against coronary heart disease and strokes. The three firms that hold the third generation patents are Organon, Wyeth-with-Schering and Janssen-Cilag. The latter two had held second generation patents that were running out. Third generation pills were vigorously marketed and about


1.5 million women in the United Kingdom—out of a total of 3 million pill users in the country—were using them last October. Half the pill users were taking third generation pills.
It was against that background that the Committee on Safety of Medicines had to issue its warning on 18 October last year that three independent new studies showed that the third generation pills, on a pooled estimate, doubled the risk of the old problem of blood clotting in the legs, leading to pulmonary embolism. It is a good idea to keep a sense of proportion and to bear the numbers in mind. The background risk of pulmonary embolism was five cases per 100,000 women per year not taking the pill, 15 cases per 100,000 women per year taking second generation pills and 30 cases per 100,000 women per year taking third generation pills. The 50 per cent. of young, pill-taking women, probably raising their families, using third generation pills, were therefore suffering 75 to 150 more thromboembolisms, and each year one to two more of them were dying.
It was not a major disaster by serious epidemic or public health disaster standards, but even those numbers should not be on the conscience of any firm or group of workers. Following the warning in October, sales of third generation pills have dropped drastically. One of the firms affected, Organon, has a factory in Newhouse next to my constituency, so I am acutely aware of the industrial effects. At the time of the announcement, the lay media did an excellent job of accurately reporting the relevant brands and passing on the committee's message that no one need stop taking oral contraceptives, but the scientific press made an ass of itself.
On 18 October, Schering, one of the three patent holders, flew over from Montreal Professor Spitzer, the author of one of the studies. He gave a press conference at Heathrow criticising the Committee on Safety of Medicines, based partly on his own work—possibly without knowing the other two study results.
Organon, another of the patent holders, paid for a conference in London for 400 family planning doctors in order to argue its case. Both the British Medical Journal and Nature managed to get their reporting of the facts wrong. For comic relief, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who I see is in his place and who is the Liberal Democrats' spokesperson on health—persisted in suggesting that the committee's announcement was a Government conspiracy to divert attention from the Home Secretary's troubles with Derek Lewis. I do not think that the Secretary of State for Health is that stupid, but the hon. Gentleman should not attack the independence and integrity of scientists doing their public duty.
The Committee on Safety of Medicines' announcement was not rushed: data for the two case control studies were collected between 1989 and 1993. The general nature of the results was known to those involved in the industry and in the regulatory agencies in advance of the announcement by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Owing to the nature of its work, the committee has to base its findings on mostly unpublished work, and when the three studies were published, it was generally agreed on reflection that the committee was right to act as it did.
In one way, the episode has demonstrated the effectiveness of modern pharmaceutical research and monitoring. Yet, and yet, and yet—was it necessary for that decade of commercial research to be wasted on the blind alley of the third generation pills? More fundamental medical research might have come up with real advances in contraception, but instead contraceptive research was run down by the Medical Research Council. Had the United Kingdom publicly funded cohort studies been extended and had new research methods been adopted, could not the epidemiology of pulmonary thromboses, cholesterol levels, heart attacks and strokes have been properly measured in women at a much earlier stage and at much reduced cost?
What about the use of the United Kingdom general practice research database? American drug companies often say that the United Kingdom is a good place to do pharmaceutical research, because the national health service provides such a coherent and well-ordered source of data. The general practice research database is a good case in point. It is a computerised record by general practitioners of all the medical events affecting some 3 million or 4 million people and accumulating in the past five or six years. It is a record that could not have been built up in the United States without a general practitioner system. It is a development of the VAMP—value added medical products—system which this privatising Tory Government nationalised absentmindedly when Reuters decided that it could not afford to develop it. It is now run by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys which has now been merged into the new Office of National Statistics. The software is archaic and the only person who seems to be able to wring real results out of the database is Hershel Jick, an American in Boston who is 70 years old and operates on his own with half a dozen assistants. It was to him that the Committee on Safety of Medicines had to go for a database study on third generation pills.
Open access to the general practitioner research database costs £250,000 a year, which puts it out of the reach of academic researchers. It is a neglected gem of a resource. There are two United Kingdom efforts at exploitation of the database. One is by Dr. Alan Dean, the remarkable medical practitioner who pioneered the database. The other, which is apparently inadequately resourced, is by the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Contrast that with the sophistication of the human genome databases. Three independent versions are emerging, two of them with free access and two of them privately financed.
Let us suppose that the Committee on Safety of Medicines wanted a pharmaceutical company to carry out a study on a licensed drug, as it could have done using the general practitioner research database. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has no powers to require a pharmaceutical company to do that. In the trials before licensing, the CSM has the obvious sanction of refusing the licence until the study is done, but afterwards it has no sanction. It could withdraw the licence, but often that is not desirable because there may be cases in which the drugs are useful, as with third generation pills for older women who persist in smoking while taking the pill. The CSM can ask for new studies on a licensed product, but only if it has new evidence rather than a new judgment on existing evidence.
The Medicines Control Agency, the CSM, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Medical Association and the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry have issued agreed guidelines for company-sponsored safety assessment of marketed medicines. That is an admirable example of the way in which progress is made by agreement in the United Kingdom, but the so-called SAMM guidelines do not cover database methods, nor does the CSM have powers to require such studies. Drug companies can be recalcitrant and tough, as the third generation pill affair showed. Could not the CSM have powers to require companies to carry out specified studies on licensed drugs or pay for others to do so?
In discussing these issues, members and staff from all the organisations concerned, pharmaceutical companies included, have been very helpful, especially John McEwan, a consultant at King's College hospital who alerted me to the broader issues; Michael Rawlins, the chairman of the CSM; Susan Wood, a director of the Medicines Control Agency; and Frances Charlesworth, a director of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. The views that I have expressed and any mistakes that I have made are, of course, entirely my own.
I think that the practice in the United Kingdom of seeking informal agreement is more healthy and productive than the lawyer and litigation-ridden world in the United States and the regulated, directive-laden world of the European Union, but we have to live with those worlds and they have great strengths, including the enterprise of the American and the thoroughness of the European. We go too far in our passion for informality and agreement if we let things slip.
Safety is not the only aspect of medicines that has to be considered. Important issues arise in patenting, research and pricing. Safety must not be compromised by those or any other considerations, yet there are interactions. An enhanced pharmaco-vigilance system would increase the price of medicines. Firms will not do research that does not offer the prospect of a commercial return, yet the prospect of a valuable patent can unlock resources for research quite beyond the reach of the basic research funding bodies, whether charitable or public. The CSM and the Medicines Control Agency must not be diverted by interesting research questions, by difficult patent issues, by tough commercial pressure or by political pressures. They must have the uncompromising support of Parliament in discharging their responsibilities for safety, but Parliament must likewise provide other ways in which the interactions can be explored and reviewed.
Medicines have a long history. The existence of the overarching Medicines Commission was a factor that led the Select Committee on Science and Technology recently to recommend the setting up of a human genetics commission to keep an overview on that rapidly developing field. The Government seem about to accept the principle of that recommendation. A similar breadth of view needs to be, and could be, taken for medicines generally by the existing Medicines Commission without in any way compromising the independence and integrity of the CSM and the Medicines Control Agency.
The integration of national pharmaco-vigilance in a European framework, which is an important current development, will of course continue, and that offers great advantages if it operates well. We should certainly play

our full part in its development. But it will increase the complexity of the interactions with the other considerations—for example, patenting and research—that have to be watched. I hope that the Minister will be able to show the House that the Government have learnt the broader lessons from the third generation pill story.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) for introducing the debate, but I take a fundamentally different view of the lessons to be learnt and I shall set out why. For the record, I must say that, last October—the time that is most relevant to the debate—I was not doing my current job on health for my party, and I was therefore not directly involved at the time.
I was appointed to my current job later in the autumn and, by doing by my own research and investigation, I have come to the conclusion that several severe questions have yet to be answered by Ministers and that they have not yet come clean. Something appears to be rotten in the state of the advisory system on the safety of drugs. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I remain to be persuaded that politics and medical advice were not intermixed in this instance, with the serious result that the health of a considerable number of women was adversely affected—in one case, potentially, fatally.
About 1.5 million women were using third generation oral contraceptives during the second half of last year and, as the hon. Member for Motherwell, South said, a preponderance of them were young. They were much more likely to be prescribed what are called third generation oral contraceptives, the clearest definition of which, as I understand it, is those that contain one of two chemicals—desogestrel or gestodene. They are the type of products affected.
I want, first, to put on record what I understand to be the sequence of events surrounding the Government's announcement on birth control pills, and a letter sent to general practitioners, last October, which had the same sort of effect as their subsequent announcement on bovine spongiform encephalopathy—namely, that they caused people to change their habits. It is clear that, as a result of the announcement in October, a considerable number of women stopped taking a particular pill, or any pill. The result was that many women had either abortions or unwanted pregnancies.
No later than July last year, interim results of a World Health Organisation study into second and third generation oral contraceptives were issued. The results were sent to the Medicines Control Agency, the body with responsibility for regulation in Britain. On 19 September, the MCA requested a meeting with Professor Spitzer, one of the three academics referred to by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. Spitzer is the author of the transnational report. The meeting took place on 9 and 10 October, and those who attended were given tables from the expedited analysis of the study. On 10 October, Professor Spitzer met the MCA and the Committee on Safety of Medicines sub-group, which specifically comprises the people who make the decisions and recommendations.
The very next day—11 October—the MCA called a special meeting of the Committee on Safety of Medicines for 13 October. On the same day, it referred the matter to


the European Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products, the CPMP. Papers were sent on 11 October to CSM members who, on the same day, received the final manuscript from one of the other academics referred to by the hon. Member for Motherwell, North, Professor Jick.
CSM members received the papers—about 150 pages each—on 12 October. On the same day, the MCA met the producer companies, Organon, Schering and Wyeth. On 13 October, with only two days' notice, the CSM met. I hope that the Minister will tell us what it decided and specifically what it recommended, because it would be very helpful if its decision and recommendations were put in the public domain.
On 16 October, the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Sackville), who was then an Under-Secretary of State for Health, approved the sending of what has come to be known as the "Dear Doctor" letter, to be issued on 18 October. On 17 October, the European Committee met to consider the safety of oral contraceptives and that meeting went on until 18 October. On the afternoon of 18 October, the "Dear Doctor" letter was sent to about 27,000 GPs across the country. I shall deal later with whether it actually reached all those whom it was intended to reach.
On 19 October, there was a press conference to announce what was going on and that the letter had been issued. A press release was also issued. The press release is material because it gave doctors advice on what to say to patients but it also specifically made it clear that some women should be advised to change their contraceptive. In the press release, the chairman of the CSM stated:
I have written to all doctors and pharmacists to provide them with detailed advice … We realise that our advice will place a burden on doctors and pharmacists … Doctors should discuss the CSM's advice with patients taking the pills listed in order to determine whether a change in brand is necessary. In general, women taking a pill containing gestodene or desogestrel should be advised to change to another brand, unless they are intolerant of other oral contraceptives.
The salient part of the press release is that advice should be given to change from an otherwise commonly used third generation oral contraceptive.
The very same afternoon—the public and the House can draw their own conclusions about this—and a matter of four hours after the press conference, there was a debate in the House on the Learmont report, during which the Home Secretary, more than ever before or since in his career at the Home Office, had his back to the wall. The Government were in considerable difficulty. On Friday—the following day—the Department of Health issued a press release refuting the claim that its analysis of the three independent studies was not the final one.

Mr. John Marshall: The hon. Gentleman is obviously trying to create the conspiracy view of history, but on that particular day the Home Secretary gave the shadow Home Secretary such a beating and won such a parliamentary victory that the Government would have wanted it to make the headlines.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that, but nobody was to know in advance that the Home Secretary would come out on top, not least the Home Secretary.

Mr. Marshall: The Home Secretary wins against the shadow Home Secretary in every debate. The shadow Home Secretary is an embarrassment even to members of his own Front Bench.

Mr. Hughes: I am not going to respond to that. I have my own views on those particular battles, but this is a debate on another matter which appears to have become intertwined with the Government's agenda of defending themselves against a serious report on the conduct of the Prison Service.
On Monday 23 October, the Secretary of State for Health made a statement to the House. In that statement, he did not reveal, although he knew it, that the "Dear Doctor" letter was going to be supplemented by a further letter intended to limit the damage caused by the first. The second letter was being prepared, and was sent on 26 October. It clarified and, in a sense, sought to allay the alarm caused by the first letter that had been sent only a few days earlier. Both letters came, in effect, from the Committee on Safety of Medicines.
To complete the series of events, in November, the hon. Member for Bolton, West was moved to the Home Office but, most materially, in April this year, the CPMP recommended that no action needed to be taken. On 1 May, however, the CSM sent a letter, which also is not yet in the public domain, to the manufacturers stating that it, the CSM, had advised the licensing authorities that regulatory action should now be taken. I understand that manufacturers are now considering appealing against that.

Dr. Bray: At this point in the hon. Gentleman's account of events, might it be relevant for him to say that, although the European committee did not recommend action, the German committee took action in amending the licence and, furthermore, since then I understand from a pharmaceutical company that the CSM has written to it proposing a change in the licence?

Mr. Hughes: I accept the hon. Gentleman's first point, although I am not in a position formally to agree it. On his second point, I said that my understanding was that the CSM had written on 1 May, and that and it is against its position that there will be some regulation that the producers are now considering appealing.
I contend—it is a belief that is also widely held in relevant professions—that there was great haste in rushing the issue through the CSM, in literally two days, and then on into the public domain, that that great haste was unjustified and that it cannot be adequately explained either by the scientific evidence or by the supposedly increased risk faced by women.
That view is supported by eminent people. For example, the Government's chief medical officer in Scotland, writing in the January 1996 edition of his official publication, "Health Bulletin", said:
Last October's decision to publicise the CSM's warning to all doctors … was taken too hurriedly.


He refers to it as "an error of judgment". He goes on to say:
The Health Departments owe general practitioners an apology
for what he then called
the fiasco over oral contraceptives.
That is the view of the Government's chief medical officer in Scotland, and I should be grateful to know whether the Minister agrees with it, and if not, why not.
Secondly, the chairman of the family planning faculty of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, David Bromham, who I understand was present at the CSM meeting on 13 October as an outside adviser, has said:
one is forced to wonder whether the haste in disseminating the CSM letter was justified.
I shall come back to him in a minute.
Why was there such urgency to get the CSM advice on supposedly new information relating to third generation oral contraceptives on 11 October? Again, to pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, the issue was not considered by the sub-committee on pharmaco-vigilance, on the ground of the urgency of the matter, on any date before 13 October, even though it is the normal practice for safety issues to go to that committee for prior consideration.
The Minister, in an answer to me on 19 December, said that it is normal practice for urgent safety issues to be considered without prior consideration when there are time constraints, but here there were no necessary time constraints. The evidence had been around at least for weeks, if not for months. I say that for this reason. The regulatory bodies had information and did nothing about it from May last year until October. It is clear that the sub-committee met on 5 September and 3 October. We know that oral contraceptives were placed high on the agenda of the European working party in August last year. Therefore, it was already known that there was a problem.
The question is, why was the matter not on the agenda of either of the two meetings of the relevant sub-committee of the CSM in the UK, which had the principal responsibility for considering these issues, when it could have considered the matter on either of those dates last summer. A full committee meeting was called, at two days' notice, in October, the sub-committee was by-passed, and members were given 24 hours to read all the papers.
Next, I have a set of questions about the regulatory action. Why, if there was such an urgent need for people to know about the increased dangers, was no regulatory action taken from last October until 1 May this year? If the pills were dangerous, why was it perfectly permissible for them to go on being prescribed? The MCA specifically asked the CSM to consider at its meeting the regulatory implications and whether there should be withdrawal or warnings. Nothing happened for more than six months.
To make it clear, the word "warning" is, I am advised, a synonym of the technical term "variation"—a variation that applies to the regulations which govern the use of pills such as these.
The CSM was specifically asked about regulatory action in October. What we have not heard, and what the Minister has so far refused to reveal in any parliamentary answers, is whether the CSM recommended any regulatory action. I ask the Minister to make sure that he tells the House that in his answer today.
With regard to the regulatory issues, as far as I can judge, and as far as I have been able to research and am advised, it is unprecedented to make an announcement, as the Government did and always planned to do, and then not to take regulatory action within a short period thereafter.
There was always going to be a public statement. It would have created as much of a scare as did the one issued at midday by the Department of Health. We know that because the Secretary of State said, in his statement to the House on 23 October, that the MCA planned a public announcement on Thursday afternoon. The Minister has twice refused to answer parliamentary questions from me asking him on which other occasions, if any, such a warning letter has been issued without follow-up action.
For fear that the Minister might interpret that as an unqualified criticism, I should say that I am grateful to him and to his officials, although they may not love me for it, for the many answers to my many questions that I have received. I do not want anyone to assume that a large amount of information has not been revealed. However, some of the key questions have not been answered and I do not want the Minister to believe that he is yet off the hook, because I do not think that he should be. I hope that he will answer today the questions that I pose today. If he does not, I give him warning that they will certainly be pursued. Has there been any warning letter in the past to doctors without regulatory action linked to it?
The only reason that I have been given for our not having the answer so far is that it would be disproportionately costly. That is a normal let-out of the Government, but compared with the consequences of this action, it could be argued that the costs would be worth paying. Perhaps the answer would be unhelpful to the Government.
Can the Minister be clear in his answer whether the pharmaceutical companies have a right of appeal? Were the regulatory authorities right to behave as they did? My advice is that, although they were given early advice that they were acting within their power to take the action, or inaction, that they took, they were subsequently told that they were not. We need to be told.
The fact that such issues have not been addressed and that answers have not been given is ground for suspicion about what the Government were playing at through those crucial days in mid-October last year. What was the outcome? Nothing happened in October, but on 1 May this year, more than six months later, the committee sent a letter to companies stating that it had advised the licensing authority that regulatory action should now be taken.
The only thing that had happened, apart from, if the hon. Member for Motherwell, South is right, the change in the German regulatory body's view, was that the European body, meeting on 16 and 18 April, decided that there was no decisive evidence of any increased risk from oral contraceptives, and had declined to recommend any regulatory action. Indeed, the chairman of the European body, Professor Alexandre, said last month that it would be "absurd" to take any regulatory action against any of the pills, given the uncertainty of the data.
If the Government did not take any action until May—they have now, apparently, taken action—because they were waiting for pan-European advice or action, why have


they now proceeded to propose regulations through their agency, the CSM, against the recommendation of the European body?
In any event, the Minister for Health at the time said:
it is a matter for individual states to deal with"—[Official Report, 7 November 1995; Vol. 265, c. 681.]
In his statement, the Secretary of State for Health said:
The responsibility for reaching clinical judgments about which contraceptives satisfy the standards required by law rests on me, subject to the advice from the Committee on Safety of Medicines."—[Official Report, 23 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 704.]
I assume, therefore, that that means that the Secretary of State takes responsibility for the regulatory action that the regulatory authorities have the power to take. The conclusion to be drawn must be either that the oral contraceptives concerned did not satisfy the standards required by law, in which case regulatory action should have been taken, normally on the same day, or they satisfied the standards, which we must assume was the case given that nothing happened for six months. If that was the case, why on earth did we have such an alarmist announcement in October?

Dr. Bray: Does the hon. Gentleman consider that he is advancing the cause of safety of medicines if he asks for watertight, cast-iron judgments on whether a product is safe? To insist on a reply to such a question would force Ministers and the system into a quite impossible position. The Minister must ensure that agencies spell out the facts and that a judgment is given, but we must recognise that it is a judgment. Now that all the material has been published, is the hon. Gentleman saying that the general view of the medical profession is that they should prescribe third generation drugs in preference to second generation drugs in the ordinary case?

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly proper and profound central question. I share his view. On this issue, I have been supportive of the Government, such as when the Secretary of State for Health made a statement about bovine spongiform encephalopathy. It is not my case that the Government should always reach conclusions on the basis of scientific evidence, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that. My case is that the letter and the press release that went out in this instance made it clear that the advice that should be given to general practitioners, and which it was suggested they should give to their patients, was that women on the third generation pill should change their prescription. That was the balance of view that was taken. I do not argue that the Government should substitute their view for that professional one.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South is a scientist, and I am not, but I have done enough science to understand the issue. My case is that we should give people the evidence and the facts and that, from it, different conclusions can be drawn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is not the burden of my case that the Government should always have a definitive view, and I would not wish to push this or any other Government into that position. It is important that we do not spoon feed, or pretend to spoon feed, the public when evidence is often contradictory and difficult to draw conclusions from.
I shall move on to my final remarks, as I know that the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish) wishes to speak from the Labour Front Bench, and I am keen to give the Minister plenty of time to answer the questions that remain to be answered. I have given the Minister notice of three specific questions.
First, the Secretary of State stated on 23 October 1995 that the concerns relating to oral contraceptives arising from the World Health Organisation study were brought to the attention of the Medicines Control Agency in July. Will the Minister confirm that that is not correct and that the MCA had the information in May, not July, as the evidence shows that it had a further two months' notice, which the Government have so far not admitted?
Secondly, in his statement, the Secretary of State indicated that adequate information had been made available to doctors to allow them to make informed decisions. That point was made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South. When the Secretary of State made that assertion, the MCA was working with the Family Planning Association to sponsor a letter to correct some of the deficiencies of the 18 October "Dear Doctor" letter. The chief medical officer in Scotland made it clear that the "Dear Doctor" letter did not get through to all doctors, and he has severe concerns about the fax system, however good it might be in theory. The MCA spent in excess of £90,000 to sponsor the second letter, which was, in effect, a correction of the first. One of the Minister's written answers describes the second letter as having been issued because of a clear need to provide health professionals with additional advice and guidance on the practical management issues arising from the advice issued by the CSM. I hope that the Minister will issue a correction to the statement of 23 October, and confirm that the Government accepted that the information issued on 18 October was inadequate and flawed and that they knew that by the time the Secretary of State came to the House on 23 October.
Thirdly, in a written answer on 19 December 1995, the Minister stated that the final report of the WHO study had been received by the MCA on 6 October. A further question, on 30 April, elicited the information that the final WHO report was dated 13 October. Any document received on 6 October cannot therefore have been the final report, which must mean that the answer given to the House on 19 December was inaccurate.
We are told, in "Questions of Procedure for Ministers":
Ministers must not knowingly mislead Parliament and the public and should correct any inadvertent errors at the earliest opportunity.
I hope that the Minister will correct today what I am still perfectly happy at the moment to accept were inadvertent errors.
Finally—this is a scientific point—why was an announcement made when there was no new evidence of increased risk? I have taken the advice that is available to all of us, and it has always been known that there is a small risk of blood clots—thromboembolism—from all oral contraceptives. It has generally been supposed that the risk was to about 30 cases per 100,000 women each year. All that the new evidence revealed was that the risk continues with third generation oral contraceptives, while for those containing second generation drugs it is lower than was previously supposed. The news was, therefore,


good news. It was that there is no greater risk and, therefore, there was no need for any alarming announcement.

Dr. Bray: There were new data—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman accepts that—on second and third generation drugs. The new data showed that the risks from second generation drugs were lower than was thought and that the risks from third generation drugs were twice those of the second generation ones. The absolute level of risk depends on the denominator. A notorious problem in testing is that it is very difficult to know with what a comparison is being made, but in this case it is quite clear: it was between second generation and third generation drugs. I think that there is no dispute about the evidence.

Mr. Hughes: I am happy to tell the House that, on those facts, there is no dispute between the hon. Gentleman and me, but I draw the same conclusion as I drew before: what went out was a warning. I think that he will accept that it was stated in the letter that GPs should advise women on third generation pills to change their prescription—but there was no evidence of greater risk. It was greater than with second generation drugs, but there was no evidence of greater risk than was known before. I shall conclude with what the professionals say about that.
The family planning faculty of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists advised GPs this January that it is safe for them to continue to prescribe third generation oral contraceptives. The chairman, who was present at the meeting of 13 October, said:
The surprise is that the older Pills carry a lower risk than previously supposed. As this emerges as the true situation, one is forced to wonder whether the haste in disseminating the CSM letter was justified.
On 23 October, the Secretary of State said:
the evidence is that … women do not find it"—
the advice—
confusing."—[Official Report, 23 October 1995; Vol. 264, c. 706.]
I do not think that that is true. A survey of 1,300 third generation pill users carried out in November by Exeter university found that half had had their confidence shaken and that teenagers were particularly confused about the level of increased risk.
A separate survey by a family doctor in Oxfordshire found that 12 per cent. of users at her practice had stopped taking the pill on the day of the warning. A family planning expert, Dr. Horrocks, at Frenchay hospital in Bristol, said that at least 56 women were known to have had a termination in the past three months because fear had prompted them to stop taking the pill. She said:
This is probably an underestimate. In February, we could barely cope with the numbers coming in. Instead of having 70 waiting at one time, there were 170. The waiting list was much longer. Sometimes it was difficult getting women seen before 12 weeks.
There was widespread confusion and there was panic. Some doctors advised women to stop taking the pill immediately, even if they were in mid cycle. Others advised an immediate change to second generation pills and it has been professionally argued—I say this carefully because I do not want to be alarmist—that there has been one death of a woman who suffered a massive blood clot as a direct result of being switched from a third-generation pill to another.
There was a public health "fiasco", to use the word of the chief medical officer in Scotland. There are no clear answers to some of the crucial questions, the most important of which is what the advice of the CSM was in October. It is, therefore, difficult to escape the conclusion that there is something as yet not revealed by the Government, and possibly something that they still wish to hide about why there was a rushed announcement in October.
Why did we get such a slow set of events between May and October last year and then another slow set of reactions between October and May this year? Why did we have a public health warning and no regulatory action, despite the fact that advisers were asked specifically to consider it? Why have we had a further six-month delay before any regulatory action has been taken? Why was regulatory action taken two weeks after the European advice that we did not need to take regulatory action? If this is not a serious set of questions about the control of medicines, I do not know what is.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) on bringing this debate to the Floor of the House. It is an important debate in many respects, the first being the recent health scares—the most notable being the BSE scare. We need to have a debate on the safety of medicines and on the way in which the Government handle the issue.
Secondly, very sophisticated electronic news-gathering now exists, and increasingly the Government do not appear to be aware of that. Scares can develop very quickly. Thirdly, with the advances in research in science and technology we are in a much better position to identify adverse reactions to drugs, which is much to be welcomed. Fourthly—this is really the background to the debate—we need to have a wider public who are more informed and educated on health matters. It is ludicrous that in 1996 a scare can develop so quickly. One of the reasons for that is the Government's lack of trust in the public and the lack of information that the public have on which to make informed choices about their health and the health of members of their families.
Above all, there is the question of public confidence in the scientific community, and in the ability of Government to disseminate information, which is a matter that we have to take extremely seriously. It is obviously an issue of public interest, but it is also an issue for manufacturers, who use sophisticated processes to produce excellent products and have a great interest in how we deal with the safety of drugs.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South suggested, we owe it to our scientific community to take them seriously. Scientists do an excellent job of advising Government, but they are often dragged into a debate and treated very unsympathetically. The issue is also vital for the medical profession, especially general practitioners, who are often at the sharp end of receiving information from Government and from the Committee on Safety of Medicines. They are also at the sharp end of public reaction, as we have seen with the scare about the oral contraceptive pill. The issue is of enormous interest for all concerned.
There are, however, no easy solutions. The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly made the point that there is no quick fix for some


of the serious concerns. Nevertheless, it is incumbent on parliamentarians and on all the organisations that I have mentioned to try always to improve communications techniques so that the public have information on which to make sound choices.
I will concentrate on two areas. The first is informing the public and the professionals when there is a safety alert involving drugs and medicine. Secondly, I will refer briefly to pharmaco-vigilance and the post-market surveillance of medicines as that is clearly an important issue for those in the field who seek to monitor what is happening in relation to prescribed drugs.
Today's debate has largely, and rightly, been taken up with last October's scare about contraceptive pills. That has been well documented and I do not intend to go much further into the details. However, important lessons can be learnt from the substance of that issue. It is important to stress that Government can learn lessons. Clearly, we have become immune to the Government's indifference in recent years in relation to certain issues. However, it is vital that they take seriously criticisms that are intended to help the public and not merely to be another debating point in the Chamber.
An article in The Times on 20 April this year was headlined:
Britain is criticised over pill scare".
It talked about the alert which, as the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey said, is likely to lead to several thousand unwanted pregnancies or abortions. We should not underestimate the importance of that. The Times article then said:
The announcement leaves Britain isolated over its stand on so-called third-generation Pills.
We are well used to the scepticism and exaggeration that can accompany press articles, but The Times makes an important point. The article continues:
But the European agency said that there were too many uncertainties in the three studies used by the Government to justify its alert … The European agency said it was calling for more research.
The article highlights the concerns about why the Government took action and when they took action. It is now important to look further at some of the lessons that can be learnt from the way in which the matter was dealt with.
Crucially—I have made this point before, but I will make it again because it is worth repeating—the public deserve to have proper guidance and proper information. In many respects, the BSE scare highlighted a real crisis of communication from Government to people. There was no attack on the scientific community, but the initial scare was the basis of the subsequent scares, for which everyone is now paying the price. Information is important.
An article in the British Medical Journal of Saturday 28 October advising women about which pill to take was a constructive piece. However, the article said that
legitimate questions may be asked about the timing of the announcement, procedures for circulating information to doctors, and the detailed content of the committee's letter".
Again, that illustrates the basic problem of communication between a Government who have absorbed information given to them and the professionals and the public to whom they give information.
It is also important to consider an article in The Lancet of 27 January 1996, which states:
The UK and German regulatory agencies have erred and their respective governments must ensure that such intemperate action does not happen again. The European Union's regulatory authority and regulatory agencies in other countries, including the US Food and Drug Administration, have waited for the opportunity to examine in detail the published, peer-reviewed … studies.
That is another example of the wide-ranging criticism of the Government's handling of the matter. Articles in distinguished periodicals, the British Medical Association and many consumer organisations have also criticised the Government.
It is crucial that we have safety margins, but monitoring must not create medical scares. I stress that point and I hope that the Government will respond to it. I have spoken mainly about the public, but in that particular scare, GPs, who are in the front line in terms of patient in care, were given only perfunctory notice of what was happening. Again, they were reading about it in the press while information was filtering through to their surgeries as to what they could tell patients who telephoned them. That smacks of a fundamental weakness in the process.
If the Government learn nothing more from today's debate than that they must continuously give information to the professionals to pass on to the public, we shall have done the nation a favour. That said, it strikes me that the Government are often unwilling to take lessons.
Let me summarise the serious issues. First, the quantity, quality and consistency of scientific evidence must be taken seriously. Secondly, although I do not want to join in the attack on the Government in respect of the announcement regarding the contraceptive pill, it is obvious that timing is crucial. Professionals must be informed and the Government must follow up initial health alerts with positive helpful guidance. It did not happen with BSE; we nearly had another crisis on the phthalate in powdered baby milk; and then, of course, there was the oral contraceptive scare last year. There are too many scares. Ultimately, the Government must bear responsibility for improving the handling of information.
Thirdly, the Government should review the process of circulating information to doctors. Fourthly, we need to examine the process of informing the public. Fifthly, there is concern about the detailed contents of letters and advice as there have been many criticisms in the past that, to use the old adage from one of the adverts, one should never make a drama out of a crisis. Clearly, we should be cognisant of wording and keep it very simple.
My final point relates to transparency and secrecy. It is not a particular attack on the present Government, but on all Governments. We simply do not take the public into our confidence in the way that we should. There is always reluctance to provide information when we feel more comfortable hanging on to it. It is clear from the medical press and consumer groups generally that there is too much secrecy about health matters. I hope that the establishment of the European agency will provide new opportunities to make issues more transparent.
I acknowledge that companies need to have an eye on commercial confidentiality and that sophisticated processes are at work, but none of those issues should be subservient to the need for the public to know and to make informed choices on the knowledge that they have. It is a difficult balance to strike. Nevertheless, we should be making greater efforts towards it.
I have outlined the issues to which the Government should respond, which involve their attitude as well as the implementation of practical policies. They have demonstrated more than a hint of arrogance and complacency in dealing with issues involving the public. We should remember that we are elected by the public and the Government are selected from a group of elected representatives. Therefore, the public should always be the overwhelmingly important factor.
Finally, so that the Minister, who is desperate to get to his feet, can have adequate time, I turn briefly to pharmaco-vigilance and surveillance in the marketplace. The system in operation is known as the "yellow card" system. It is a basic procedure whereby adverse drug reactions are recorded and forms are submitted to the authorities monitoring drug safety. The system is working well, but the BMA has raised two issues that I should like to put to the House.
First, it is clear that there are fluctuations in the reporting of adverse drug reactions. There could be good reasons for that, but the BMA suggests that there should be further research into how the system is operating. It could be that there are fewer adverse drug reactions, which would be warmly welcomed by all concerned. Secondly, there is a possibility that the time involved in filling in forms could be a disincentive to some GPs properly to report adverse drug reactions. There may be problems that require investigation.
The second issue raised by the BMA concerns the confusing terminology used in reporting adverse drug reactions. According to the BMA:
For example the British Natural Formulary uses the terms `cautions', 'contradictions' and `side-effects', while MIMS (the monthly index of medical specialties) uses 'special precautions',`drug interactions' and 'adverse drug reactions'. There is a European Union definition of what is an adverse drug reaction.
It suggests that a standardised definition might be helpful, but acknowledges the complexity of these matters. Nevertheless, the BMA has contributed two positive ideas to the debate and I hope that the Minister will consider them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, South and the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey have made the issues quite clear. We have had a scientific and technical discussion, but at the end of the day I return to the point on which I started. We must always reassure the public that their drugs are safe in the hands of the Government and the experts who are dealing with them.
Finally, I call on the Government to review the way in which they handle health issues. It seems to me that we have built up a catalogue of scares. On reflection, some of them might not have been avoidable—perhaps the complex process of society means that it is impossible to get it completely right or wrong.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): indicated assent.

Mr. McLeish: The Minister agrees with me. When we have three or four such scares in a row, however, Oscar Wilde's comment about carelessness comes to mind. It would be worth while for the Government to review the way in which they handle the interface with the public on health issues. I hope that the Minister will consider that point. It is not only germane to the

Health Department: Ministers at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food could use a significant dose of reality to knock some of them out of their complacency, particularly Ministers dealing with the BSE crisis. However, I will not spoil a speech in which I have tried to be constructive by making any further attacks on the Government. That can wait until another day.

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): I welcome the opportunity to respond to the important debate that the hon. Member for Motherwell, South (Dr. Bray) has been successful in securing. In the time that remains, it may be helpful if I address the specific points that the hon. Gentleman made in his speech and then turn to wider issues and set them in the context of the Government's policy in these matters. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will not take it amiss if I begin with the points raised by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), with the intention of getting them out of the way before dealing with the substance of the debate.
With typical courtesy, the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey gave me notice of the specific questions that he wished to raise. I shall deal with those before explaining how I intend to deal with the range of eclectic points that he made and I shall set out my reasons for dealing with them in that way.
First, the hon. Gentleman asked when the Medicines Control Agency first became aware of the World Health Organisation study. The MCA first became aware of the likelihood that information would become available from the WHO study in May, but it was not until July that information from the study was provided suggesting that there was concern as to the safety of some oral contraceptives.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the advice of the Committee on Safety of Medicines was not adequate. He has questioned the value of the committee's information on other occasions as well, although in fact it has given doctors extremely clear advice on the use of the relevant oral contraceptives. He then tied that in with the guidance of the Family Planning Association. I remind him that the purpose of that guidance was to place the CSM's advice in the context of family planning practice, which can be different.
There is no point in the hon. Gentleman's pointing out that the two are different in substance. Of course they are: they are specifically designed to be. The hon. Gentleman, however, seems to take a perverse delight in refusing to recognise what are often simple facts. It is the role of the FPA, not the CSM, to give guidance on the practicalities of management of the care of women. I hope that he will now accept that distinction.
The hon. Gentleman has often repeated his serious accusation that Parliament was misled about the date of the final World Health Organisation study. I have answered that question at least once, and I do not intend to go over the same ground again; but I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he has made some serious accusations. I am not sure whether he thinks that they are part of the cut and thrust of politics, and that that enables him to make his point. I am much less concerned about his accusation that I have misled the House—important though that may


be—than about the accusation that he levelled, at least by implication, against both officials and professionals who advise the Government on issues relating to the safety of medicines. He suggested that they were involved in some complex and incomprehensible conspiracy connected with the way in which the matter was brought to the public's attention.
It is disgraceful that, notwithstanding the evidence that I have provided in answer to more than 200 written questions tabled by him, the hon. Gentleman persists in the accusation that a conspiracy has taken place. It is time that he abandoned that false trail, and concentrated on the substance of the issues—which he pretends to do, while using that as a smokescreen for what is simply a political campaign.
I will check the points made by the hon. Gentleman with the questions and answers that are already in Hansard, and if there are any blank spaces I will write to him. I must deal with this complex subject in that way because I was not able to flick through the answers that had already been provided while listening to the hon. Gentleman's speech in order to establish whether I had answered all his questions. When providing him with written answers, I have often found that answers have already been given to questions which, if not asked by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, have been asked by his hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who ran around the race track about six times before handing the baton on to his hon. Friend to run around again in ever-decreasing circles and at ever-increasing speed. I will check carefully what he has said, and, if the House allows me, I will leave this part of the debate at that.
I will now deal with the serious points made by the hon. Members for Motherwell, South and for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). Having listened with great attention to what was said by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South, I will explain the purpose of controls on medicines and the way in which we try to provide medicines where they can be effective while still maximising the benefits and minimising the risks. That is the general objective of the policy.
A focal point for the debate must be the recognition of the enormous benefits conferred by modern medicines. They certainly prevent far more adverse events than they cause. The appropriate use of medicines relieves human suffering, and cures or alters the course of many life-threatening diseases. They also provide a cost-effective form of treatment. For example, modern antibiotics and vaccines have markedly reduced the impact of infectious diseases in the past 50 years. Developments in biotechnology and molecular biology are bringing about a further revolution in treatment. That is expected to have an equally dramatic impact on diseases such as cystic fibrosis, which has been extremely difficult to treat hitherto.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South struck the right note when he spoke of finding the appropriate balance between what medicines can achieve and the possible risks. In a powerful intervention on the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, he pointed out that value judgments must often be made, and that finding the right balance was the answer. Mechanisms must be designed to find that balance, and when it is

found, if it is on the side of risk, the mechanisms must deliver that information at the earliest opportunity, not only to the health care professionals who administer the medicines but to the public who consume them. The truth is that no medicine is entirely risk-free.
There is a well-defined framework for the control of medicines. As the hon. Gentleman said, in a sense the definition of that framework and its development is never completed; there is a continuing debate about how mechanisms can be improved and advanced. The hon. Member for Fife, Central asked whether, in the light of circumstances, the Government would conduct a review. There would be no specific review, but these matters are always open to debate. Better information leads to change. There is, in fact, a constant review of progress, and the hon. Gentleman will know—especially in the light of recent events—that the Government have made clear through the chief medical officer that the dissemination of information to professionals in particular is a process that we think we can improve. That is being examined, and much of it ties in with the development of technology within the national health service.
The framework for medicines control in the United Kingdom is provided by the Medicines Act 1968, and by a series of EC directives dating back to 1965. It is a comprehensive system of standards, used as the basis for authorisation, marketing and monitoring of medicines in the UK. Those standards are incorporated into the EC licensing system that came into force in January 1995. The system requires all medicines used by the public—either prescribed by doctors or purchased by consumers—to be licensed, with only a few closely controlled exemptions. Licensing is based solely on a scientific assessment of safety, quality and efficacy; other factors, such as costs, do not affect licensing decisions.
The licensing process involves rigorous assessment, including toxicity tests on a variety of animal species before any medicine is tested on humans. Prior to marketing, clinical trials of efficacy and safety are conducted in between 1,000 and 2,000 patients. As part of that assessment, the Government receive advice from independent experts—I stress the word "independent"—and from those working in the Medicines Control Agency.
Pharmaceutical companies also have responsibility for the safety of the medicines that they sell, and must meet statutory pre-marketing and post-marketing obligations. I emphasise that aspect because it relates to what seemed to be the burden of the speeches of the hon. Members for Motherwell, South and for Fife, Central: what happens at the post-marketing stage. Those obligations are to provide the licensing authority with information on safety, quality and efficacy. Extensive guidance on those requirements is available, and in general the industry complies well. if it does not, the Medicines Control Agency has power to deal with that and to ensure that it complies in future.
Pharmaco-vigilance has been referred to by all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, and I shall set out the procedures, the powers and the recent developments which ensure that pharmaco-vigilance is as effective as possible. Once a medicine is licensed, the Government monitor its adverse effects closely to ensure that it is safe in widespread use. The UK is respected world wide in this area, and the MCA also has an excellent record.
There are a number of key elements in the pharmaco-vigilance system. Access to the best advice, prompt action and effective dissemination of information about the safe use of medicines are the foundation stones on which the system is built. The licensing authority has powers to suspend, revoke or vary marketing authorisations in response to concerns about safety or efficacy, and there is an appellate process involving expert bodies before final decisions are made. The system has a clearly defined process, and has teeth to make things happen.
I pay tribute to the independent critical review provided by the Committee on Safety of Medicines. Ministers— especially the Minister for Health, in the role of licensing authority—know from direct experience that its advice is sound and can be relied upon. I shall return to how the information is disseminated, but we should consider the means by which possible safety issues with medicines are identified and investigated.
The first question is that of monitoring. The yellow card scheme, which encourages doctors to report adverse effects of medicines to the MCA, is one of the best-supported reporting schemes in the world. It is underpinned by a purpose-designed, state-of-the-art computer database that enables the MCA to identify important hazards as early as possible. The scheme has a proven track record in identifying drug safety problems promptly. The agency also has access to reports of adverse effects occurring abroad so that it can benefit from worldwide drug safety experience. Wherever possible, the scheme plugs into a wider network.
Formal post-marketing studies are an important part of the process, and a range of other methods to assess the safety of medicines are also used. The UK has taken the lead in this area by developing guidelines for those studies that are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. The hon. Member for Motherwell, South asked whether we were running down studies in these areas in a formal sense, whether enough was being spent on research and how that tied in with what happens to the commercial studies carried out by pharmaceutical companies.
The guidelines were a first for the industry, and have been followed elsewhere. They were agreed in 1993 with representatives of the industry and the medical profession. They are important because they provide for independent advisory groups to oversee the studies and for the MCA to comment on their design and receive regular reports on the findings. They are the basis upon which European Union guidelines are drawn up, and they have been incorporated into them. That is sufficient testimony to their robustness.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South knows that not all the funding of clinical studies that assess drug safety comes from the companies. Many relevant studies use direct or indirect public funding, including some commissioned by the Department's NHS research and development division—which now has an annual research budget of £21 million—and others funded by the Medical Research Council. The Government also fund the UK Cochrane centre. The hon. Gentleman, who takes a keen interest in these matters, will know that the centre plays a vital role in the dissemination of information about a range of drugs and procedures, not just in this country but world wide.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, South referred to the general practice research database, and described the present situation as a kind of reverse privatisation. I can tell him that the Department of Health knows a bargain when it sees one, and we were delighted to seize the opportunity when the GPRD became available. Since then, there have been important opportunities to develop the use of this important resource for pharmaco-vigilance purposes. This has been pursued vigorously by the MCA, which has set up an epidemiology unit directed by a leading professor of medical statistics. The goals of the unit are to make the best use of recorded linkage databases in the UK and abroad and to develop other approaches to investigating drug safety.

Dr. Bray: Will the Minister look further at the arrangements made for the exploitation of the GPRD, because a good deal more could be done?

Mr. Malone: I was going to give an undertaking that I would look carefully at the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Clearly if there are ways in which greater use can be made of this asset, we would wish to use them. I will take his remarks on board and look at ways in which we might take the matter forward. The MCA has used the GPRD on, I believe, 14 occasions until now. The database is important, and its value is clearly recognised by the Government.
The provision of information is vital, as hon. Members will recognise. Without it, collecting the information is valueless. Often information arrives that must be made available to the public rapidly because of public safety issues. Value judgments must be made, and I make no bones about the fact that—with the benefit of hindsight— better methods could have been used or further investigations carried out. The Government take responsibility for drawing to the public's attention as early as possible any information affecting public safety. If the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey can create a conspiracy theory from Ministers coming to the House to provide information, I wonder what theory he would have concocted had the decision been not to do so.
There is a range of ways in which information is made available to the professions and the public, including the British National Formulary. Other regular publications bring the information up to date and draw it to the attention of the profession. Perhaps the best known is the bulletin, "Current Problems in Pharmacovigilance", which provides more detailed and technical information on specific drug safety issues. In addition, if an important new hazard is identified, the chairman of the Committee on Safety of Medicines writes to all doctors and pharmacists as a matter of urgency. We also make use of electronic communication networks to get important information to health professionals more quickly. That is a rapidly developing field.
The MCA is playing a key role in initiatives—both within the EC and more widely, involving the USA and Japan—through the International Conference of Harmonisation to develop standards to support electronic transmission of pharmaco-vigilance information. It is important that the network spreads and that information can be made available in a comprehensible way so that it can be brought to the public's attention and to the attention of health care professionals as quickly as possible.
This has been an extremely useful debate that the Government very much welcome. Everyone recognises that medicines sometimes have adverse effects. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Motherwell, South that we must develop the systems that inform us and improve, where we can, the research that is undertaken. We must always get the balance right but never, as Ministers and as the licensing authority, be afraid to go to the public with information as and when it becomes available.

Dr. Bray: In half a minute, will the Minister say what is the machinery for examining the interactions between safety and other matters?

Mr. Malone: I am not certain that I shall be able to deal with that point in the 30 seconds available. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and I will write to him in detail on that.
In conclusion, we take our obligations very seriously. This has been a useful opportunity to air the Government's policy and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for choosing this subject.

Child Abduction (Hague Convention)

Sir John Stanley: I warmly welcome my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department to his maiden voyage at the Dispatch Box. I am sure that he will have a successful time there and stay there for many years to come.
I have initiated this debate in my capacity as a vice-chairman of the all-party child abduction group. With your consent, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that the chairman of the group, the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner), wishes to intervene briefly in the debate. The all-party group felt that this was an important moment to have a debate on the Hague convention on child abduction, given that the third review meeting of the Hague convention will take place early next year.
Mercifully, child abduction is not numerically a severe problem. There are between 100 and 200 new cases a year of children abducted from the UK which come to the Lord Chancellor's Department as the central authority under the Hague convention. There are another 100 to 200 cases of children who have been abducted to the UK, which also fall to that Department to deal with.
However, the trends are disturbing. The figures that my hon. Friend the Minister gave me in a parliamentary answer yesterday show that cases of abduction both to and from the United Kingdom have risen in each of the past five years since 1991. Although the problem may be numerically relatively small, one cannot overstate the magnitude of the distress caused to those who are involved in the forcible removal of their children. There is the distress caused to the parent from whom the child is abducted and the distress caused to the children.
There are five issues on the working of the convention that I wish to bring to my hon. Friend the Minister's attention. First, there is the issue of entitlement to legal aid. The convention's provisions are effective only to the extent that they are legally enforceable in the jurisdiction that is dealing with the case. Inescapably, many parents— probably the great majority—find the cost of lengthy litigation beyond them. Eligibility for legal aid is of paramount importance for their ability to enforce their rights under the convention. The UK has a reasonable and creditable record on that. The chief executive of the Legal Aid Board, Mr. Stephen Orchard, has confirmed to me that what is creditable about our position is that the country of residence of the individual is irrelevant in deciding whether legal aid can in principle be made available.
The answers that my hon. Friend the Minister gave me yesterday showed that our expenditure on legal aid in child abduction cases in the past financial year was higher in respect of overseas claimants than in relation to claimants who are resident in this country.
Unhappily, the position is different for cases that involve UK residents who have had their children abducted overseas and who seek to obtain legal aid in countries overseas. There are many cases of UK residents having had extreme difficulties in getting legal aid to enforce their rights under the convention. There is a serious issue of reciprocity. In equity, it is only right that, if we extend a level of legal aid availability to overseas residents pursuing cases in Britain, the same legal aid rights should be extended to UK residents who are pursuing cases overseas by those countries.
The second issue that I want to raise relates to one of the most difficult parts of the convention, but it is critical. It is the extent to which the wishes of an abducted child should be taken into account in determining to which parent he or she should be returned. The relevant provisions of the convention are set out in article 13, which states:
The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views.
The wording is unexceptional in itself. There is no doubt that an inflexible provision whereby every abducted child would be automatically taken back to the parent from whom the abduction had taken place would be wrong. In some compelling cases, there might be justice, in the child's interest, in the child remaining with the parent who had abducted the child.
The provision is sensible, but it is evident from the study of individual cases that it can be used exploitatively by a parent who has abducted a child. A young child will be easily capable of being influenced by the parent that the child is with. It is possible to manipulate a child to express a wish that he or she should remain with the parent who had carried out the abduction, rather than going back to the parent from whom that child was abducted.
In the forthcoming review, close attention must be paid to how that provision has worked in practice, and, as far as possible, steps should be taken to try to ensure that it is not exploited and abused by parents who have carried out abductions to try to secure the retention of the children that they have abducted.
Thirdly, there is the critical issue of the extent to which independent professional advice is made available to the courts in the jurisdiction in which the case is being held about which parent the child should reside with. In part, that flows from the previous point that I made about the wishes of the child.
It is clearly essential that the court has access to the wholly independent advice of child psychologists, possibly psychiatrists, social workers and others, who have been professionally involved with the child and are able to advise the court on where the child's best interests lie. It has been patently clear in many cases that the court has not taken steps to have before it fully independent advice, wholly divorced from one of the parties.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott) brought home the lack of fully independent advice that had been available in the court proceedings in Germany concerning his constituent, Mrs. Catherine Laylle, in a debate that he initiated in July last year. It is imperative that wholly independent professional advice is made available.
My fourth point concerns the operation of the convention's rights of access, which are set out in article 21. The wording of article 21 is very reassuring. It refers to
the effective exercise of rights of access
and continues:
The Central Authorities are bound by the obligations of co-operation which are set forth in Article 7 to promote the peaceful enjoyment of access rights … The Central Authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights.

There is clear evidence in individual cases that those clear rights of access, especially for the parent who does not have possession of the child—invariably the parent from whom the child has been abducted—are not being properly fulfilled. Given that such rights concern the only point of contact that the parent has, it is essential that there are effective rights of access as stated clearly in article 21.
My fifth point is that the convention's wording is generally satisfactory and has stood the test of time since its drafting was concluded in 1980. The convention's weaknesses concern the way in which it is operated and interpreted in some overseas jurisdictions. Clearly it would be an extremely laborious task to amend the convention.
Will my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary consider extremely carefully whether we could improve the convention's operation by introducing an internationally agreed code of practice on the operation of its sensitive provisions, especially in the sort of areas to which I have referred? I hope that he will consider tabling at the review meeting next year a draft code of practice for such areas, to try to improve the effective and fair working of the convention's provisions.
The Government have frequently stated that they are in favour of open government. This issue provides an excellent opportunity to practise that desirable principle. The review meeting will take place early next year, and many people outside the House and beyond Whitehall have a contribution to make to it.
I therefore hope that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department will consider issuing a consultation paper or letter, so that those who want to contribute from their own experience of the convention's operation can do so when the Lord Chancellor's Department is formulating its policy on the review meeting. Many very experienced practitioners outside the House have a great deal to offer. The excellent and most effective charity Reunite National Council for Abducted Children has a major contribution to make, as do, perhaps most importantly, people who have been the victims of child abduction.
I hope that I have put a constructive series of proposals to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. I know that he will bear in mind when considering the issue the fact that, although, numerically, child abduction does not occur on a huge scale, it is as heart-rending a human issue for adults, and particularly children, as one can find.

Mr. Bill Olner: I congratulate the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) on securing this very important debate, and I thank him for leaving me a few minutes in which to add to his excellent comments. I also congratulate the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on his new post. I think that the first time I saw him was when we were both being issued with our security passes in early April 1992.
I should like to follow the latter points made by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling on the review of the workings of the Hague convention. I know that Reunite National Council for Abducted Children is doing some excellent work in considering all the problems that people face. It certainly has strong links not only with


the Lord Chancellor's Department but with the Home Office and the Foreign Office, and is well able and professional enough to bring all those strands together.
I also think that it would be very difficult to get all the signatories to the Hague convention to alter the wording. We need to take action fairly quickly, however, so I hope that the Government will first concentrate on considering mediation. Perhaps mediation should be included in the international code of practice that will be given to judges. Many cases begin domestically and could be sorted out before they become involved in all the ramifications of the Hague convention. Some guidance needs to be given on the starting point, because many problems could be avoided.
I am grateful to the right hon. Member for citing the statistics on legal aid, because our nationals feel that it is a great injustice that foreign nationals are able to get legal aid immediately over here. Foreign nationals do not have to prove whether they are rich or poor, but automatically receive legal aid in Hague convention cases. That is not so for our nationals when they are abroad. Such differences should be looked at strictly, because legal aid provisions should be mirrored in other Hague convention countries.
While we are considering the review, we must look at the quality of the interpretation of the signatories to the Hague convention. Countries sign it, but very little seems to be in place to ensure that it is possible to put right all the things that need to be put right.
I want to leave the Parliamentary Secretary a fair amount of time to answer the important questions, so I shall leave him with a point that ought to be considered. All child abduction cases are heart-rending, and many people—standard families as well as others—are badly hurt. Even with the best legal process, there can be some injustice. Will the Parliamentary Secretary give serious thought to establishing an international panel of arbiters, so that, when two national law-making bodies clash and cannot agree, the case can be sent somewhere else, where it can be properly, fairly and independently judged?
I accept that, whatever decision is reached, one of the parties will be disappointed; but at least that decision would be taken out of everyone's hands and made by an independent arbitration panel.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. Gary Streeter): First, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) and the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Olner) for their kind remarks. The hon. Gentleman referred to an episode that we shared in the photographic booth in another place, which I remember with great affection and fondness.
I thank my right hon. Friend for initiating this important debate. I pay tribute to him, the hon. Member for Nuneaton and all members of the all-party group on child abduction for their efforts on behalf of children and parents who are involved in such unhappy situations. I also readily acknowledge the excellent work of Reunite National Council for Abducted Children. In common with my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Nuneaton, I recognise that the distress caused in such dreadful cases is real.
I believe that my right hon. Friend, and indeed all hon. Members present for this debate, support the important purposes of the 1980 Hague convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction. Those are primarily to prevent international child abduction and to promote the lawful exercise of rights of contact with children. The convention aims to achieve them by requiring a contracting state to return promptly children who have been wrongfully removed from another contracting state in breach of existing custody rights. The prompt return of children in that situation is intended to restore as nearly as possible the status quo before the wrongful removal, and to require both parents to pursue their custody and access claims in the courts of the country where the child is habitually resident.
As international contacts grow, the need for and use of conventions of that kind will increase. To illustrate the point, the total number of convention cases has doubled in the past five years, and further growth is likely, as my right hon. Friend said.
I shall attempt to persuade my right hon. Friend that the convention is generally, although not in every case, operating in a satisfactory manner. If that is right, we may reasonably assume that it also performs the valuable function of deterring would-be abductors and encouraging them to resolve their difficulties through judicial processes or mediation. Deterrence of this kind would not, of course, show up in the statistics collected by our child abduction unit.
I had intended to give the House some background information, but, in view of the time constraint, I shall refer immediately to the specific matters that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman have raised. My right hon. Friend has argued that the convention is in need of a general overhaul in order to increase its efficiency. He also made a number of specific criticisms of it. As he said, a general review of the convention's operation is planned for early next year.
The Hague conference on private international law regularly reviews the workings of existing Hague conventions; the one on child abduction was reviewed in October 1989, and again in January 1993. A special commission of the conference, which is a working group of experts from the contracting states, will meet next March to consider an agenda prepared by the permanent bureau. The review will cover any problems with the convention's operation that member states wish to raise.
The Government take that opportunity for review seriously. In the coming months, we shall do what is necessary to ensure that all relevant problems are identified and included on the agenda, and that they are then discussed by the special commission in as constructive a way as possible.
As a result of my right hon. Friend's representations today and previously, for which I am most grateful to him, I am glad to say that we have decided to carry out consultations in advance of the special conference meeting to help us to decide what matters to put forward for discussion. We have had some interesting suggestions today.
One of the problems raised by my right hon. Friend concerns the evidence of expert psychologists in applications for the return of the children under the convention. It is said, quite rightly in my view, that in


that situation psychologists must be independent experts, offering objective and professional opinions on all aspects of the cases on which their advice is sought.
It is also said that that has not happened in the case of Catherine Laylle, to which my right hon. Friend drew our attention, in her attempts before the German courts to secure proper custody and access arrangements in relation to her children. I have the greatest sympathy for Mrs. Laylle, as I have for all parents who are separated from their children in unhappy circumstances such as those that we are discussing today.
It seems that Mrs. Laylle has failed to secure the appointment of a psychologist who is able to speak both German and French, the languages spoken by her children, and who is clearly independent. The one who has in fact been appointed by the court speaks only German—not Mrs. Laylle's language—and is a local practitioner, from Bremen. Mrs. Laylle does not have confidence that his advice has been, or will be, unbiased.
I should point out that the proceedings in relation to which the psychologist's advice has been sought are not proceedings under the Hague convention. Those proceedings were concluded in October 1994 by the decision of the Celle higher regional court, which decided that Mrs. Laylle's children should not be returned to England. That decision was based on interviews with the children, not on the evidence of psychologists.
My view at present—I should emphasise that I do not have a closed mind on the issue—is that there is not a general problem with the evidence of psychologists who are not properly independent being given in proceedings under the convention for the return of children. Such proceedings are concerned only with which court should have jurisdiction to make orders in relation to the children, and are therefore necessarily summary in nature. In those circumstances, psychological evidence will not generally be of particular relevance, but if my right hon. Friend has any further material on the matter, I should like to hear from him as soon as possible.
The second specific matter raised by my right hon. Friend concerns the weight that should be given under the convention to the wishes of the children—an important matter. Under article 13, the courts of a country to which a child has been wrongfully removed may refuse to order his or her return if they find that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of his or her views.
The suggestion here is that in some cases excessive weight has been placed on those wishes, thereby frustrating the return of children in circumstances where the general principle of the convention should operate— that wrongfully abducted children should be returned to the country of their habitual residence for the courts of that country to make orders relating to their long-term future.
That is a difficult area, where each case turns very much on its own facts. However, some general propositions can be stated with confidence. There is always a difficulty about the weight to be placed on the

child's wishes where the dispute is, in effect, only on the limited jurisdictional question as to which court should determine that matter. The general principle of the convention is that abducted children should be returned to the country of their habitual residence. A number of exceptions to that principle are laid down, but it is plainly desirable that they should not be interpreted in an overly broad way; otherwise, the general principle will be undermined.
In that context, it is important that undue weight should not be attached to the wishes of the children, and that only in clear cases should those wishes be sufficient to undermine the general rule of return to the country from which the children have been abducted. It may be that, in certain cases, that exception may have been interpreted too widely and that, as a result, children have not been returned when perhaps they should have been. We are looking into this further, but my right hon. Friend will be glad to learn that it is one of the issues on which we will be consulting to determine whether we should place it on the agenda for the meeting of the special commission.
My right hon. Friend rightly complained that, although legal aid is available in this country in the usual way for applications under the convention, it is not always available in the contracting states. That remains the case in a number of countries, which I will discuss with my right hon. Friend at some stage in more detail.
I agree with my right hon. Friend that the provision of proper legal aid in such circumstances is of the upmost importance. There appears to be a problem in the United States, but it is not apparent in other countries. I will reflect further on whether any useful purpose would be likely to be served by putting that matter on the agenda for the special commission, or by taking the matter up bilaterally. If I consider that there would be, I can assure my right hon. Friend that that will be done.
My right hon. Friend referred to rights of access and the operation of article 21.I should be grateful if he would let me have details of any particular cases that I should take into account before the meeting of the special commission.
A number of interesting suggestions have been made today about what should be considered by the special commission—for example, a code of practice and an international panel of arbiters. I will reflect further on them.
My right hon. Friend is also rightly concerned about the enforcement of return orders made under the convention. That is of crucial importance, because, if a court order cannot be enforced, it is effectively worthless. There are a few cases in which the enforcement of orders by foreign authorities is at best dilatory and inefficient. In particular, there is one case in Germany about which we are concerned and which we are pursuing with as much force as we can.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for drawing attention to the various problems that have been shown to exist. He has put up a robust case, and I can assure him that we shall pursue those points with vigour.

Tourism (Scotland)

1 pm

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the opportunity to discuss Scottish tourism and its implications for our economy. Tourism is a vast and complex industry, and it merits great attention. It is my sincere hope that we shall debate the tourist industry again, but that we shall have more time to discuss the issues that are important, to analyse and to make recommendations.
Tourism is a key industry in Scotland. The latest figures available to me show that some 170,000 to 180,000 people are employed in the tourist industry, which is 8 per cent. of the Scottish work force. Therefore, the impact of the tourist industry on economic activity cannot be underestimated. It is projected that tourism will be the largest single industry in the world by the millennium. It is growing at a rate of 4 per cent. per annum and it accounts for 100 million jobs. In the north-east of Scotland, tourism is the fourth largest employer in the former Grampian region: it supports between 17,000 and 18,000 jobs, it generates some £240 million in income and it involves some 4,000 businesses.
It is my contention that that key industry deserves a strategic overview, to ensure that appropriate, democratic measures are taken to support, market and develop it. Scotland's tourist industry cannot depend on fortuitous events such as the success of the films "Braveheart", "Rob Roy" and others—even though we may have enjoyed them. Nor can Scotland rely on the nostalgia of the films "Granny's Heilan' Hame" and "Brigadoon". We should put forward the argument that tourism is a vibrant industry—that must be Scotland's approach to the late 20th century and to the beginning of the 21st century.
Hon. Members know of the delights that Scotland has to offer. My secretary, who works for me in London, had not visited Scotland until she came to work for me. I remember driving her to Dunoon and Inverness one day. Every time I turned a corner, she wanted me to stop so that she could take a photograph—I was almost a road hazard that day. We have great delights to offer people from all over the world. Therefore, we should have a strategy to ensure that we maximise on our economy, hospitality and friendliness.
In that context, I wish to make some key points to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland. My points are tendered in a constructive manner and I hope that I receive constructive answers. I refer to funding. All Grampian Members of Parliament—including the Minister— received a substantial amount of faxed material from the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board in preparation for the debate. Therefore, I shall not refer to all the details and arguments that are included in that material because of the time limits that are placed on us in these short debates. I draw the Minister's attention to what has been happening in the Irish Republic and the success that it has achieved.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As the hon. Lady is aware, last Friday the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board finally managed to set its budget for the coming year. It is £900,000 down on a £2.8 million budget, which is severe. The trade members of the board, in particular, say that because it is a statutory body, there

should be some way in which the core funding can be guaranteed. Ring-fencing probably is not feasible, but what does the hon. Lady think about the possibility of a three-year budget for the board, perhaps on a rolling programme, so that it can market tourism on a regular basis without having to worry about where the money is coming from?

Mrs. Ewing: I shall return to that issue later. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. The north-east of Scotland seems to have been particularly affected by the current round. Given that it did so much positive work in earlier days, we can draw from that example.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Is my hon. Friend aware of the splendid new tourist facilities at Duff house in the north of my constituency, the lighthouse museum in Fraserburgh and the Maritime Heritage Centre in Peterhead? The facilities have been opened recently, largely due to the work of the previous council. However, three out of five information centres in my constituency are closing. Is that not incredibly short-sighted? We have splendid new facilities, but we do not have the finance to guarantee that visitors will be given the information so that they visit them.

Mrs. Ewing: My hon. Friend makes a valid point, and there are similar problems in my constituency. Tourist information centres are often not open in Moray. The tourist information centre at Peterhead is often not open because of funding limitations—the same applies to the tourist centre at Aberlour. It is ridiculous for us to promote tourist attractions if we do not have the centres to make information available to tourists who are in the area.
I was referring to the Irish example. There is clearly strong public sector leadership, and it includes the skilful use of European funding. In promotion, marketing and training, no less than 57 per cent. of the 1994 to 1999 programme for the Republic will be funded by Europe. In my area—and in the area represented by the Minister— traditional industries, such as farming and fishing, are being disastrously undermined for a variety of reasons.
Funding should be available to Scotland from Europe. That is particularly true when tourism is being considered in the context of the intergovernmental conference as a policy that could be included in the revised treaties. That emerged originally from Council decision 92/421/EEC OJL 231. It was agreed that there should be a Community-level policy to strengthen tourism. The first report relating to that was published in April 1994. The Economic and Social Committee has also argued for a legal basis in the treaties. Europe has much to offer in the context of tourism support, particularly as many tourists to Scotland come from Europe.
Is the Scottish Office seriously looking at the support that could be available? I suspect that the Minister will refer to the tourist projects that are being underpinned by objective 1 in the highlands and islands. However, in the context of the debate on tourism as a whole, we have to look beyond objective 1 status for one area and look at the funding that is available to Scotland as a whole.

Ms Roseanna Cunningham: Is my hon. Friend aware that when the Secretary of State visited Crieff hydro earlier this year, he made a promise to


increase funding for tourism in Scotland? At about the same time, we were preparing for a decrease in local authority budgets across Scotland. Before my hon. Friend moves off the issue of funding, does she agree that the promises of the Secretary of State are yet to be fulfilled? It will be interesting to hear when we shall get that funding.

Mrs. Ewing: I shall refer to the Minister's speech later. Funding lies at the core of what is happening in the tourism industry, and I urge the Minister to examine what is being done at a national level. The problems can be compressed by referring to a quotation last year from Scottish Business Insider:
Tourism in Scotland is large and fragmented. The country is now standing at a critical crossroads … Scotland will struggle to maintain what it has, let alone grow its fair share of the market, if we do not get things right now.
Therefore, I ask for a strategic overview. That could be best undertaken by the Scottish Office in conjunction with the Scottish tourist board, the unitary authorities—to which my hon. Friends have referred by way of intervention—and our local enterprise companies.
That review is particularly relevant to the north-east of Scotland. In the months since the reorganisation of local government, discussions have been held in the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board area. Details of the negotiations and the meetings that have taken place in the past few days are provided in a long fax that Moray council prepared for me. Some progress has been made, but there are deep concerns that the business plan prepared by the board cannot be funded from existing council, Scottish tourist board or local enterprise company budgets. That has implications for the level of service that can be provided. I refer also to the previous comments about tourist information centres.
I therefore ask the Minister to consider granting some discretion to local enterprise companies in terms of funding for the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board. At present, the LECs direct attention at specific projects rather than at core funding. If we look to the core funding aspect and to a long-term plan, the people of Scotland— particularly those in the north-east—will derive great benefit. I also ask the Scottish Office to review its decisions on local government funding in that area.
I refer now to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham). When the Minister last spoke at the Scottish hospitality industry congress, he emphasised the importance that is attached to tourism training in Scotland in order to improve standards of training and staff development in that sector. He recognised that that is a daunting prospect, but he did not refer to pay and conditions.
For many involved in the tourism industry—the vast majority of whom are women—work is seasonal, part time and low paid. If we are to enhance our tourism industry, we must remove the element of drudgery and make individuals proud to be part of it. The Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses have argued for enhanced training and improved pay. Will the Scottish Office examine those key factors as part of any tourism initiative? Those who work in the tourism industry should take pride in and receive recompense for their efforts.
Will the Minister talk to the Treasury about variable valued added tax rates for bed-and-breakfast and hotel accommodation? I refer him to my parliamentary question

of 28 June 1995 on that subject and to the May 1995 edition of the Voice of the British Hospitality Association magazine. It found that the United Kingdom levies the second highest rate of VAT on tourism goods and services in Europe. The findings conclude that an across-the-board cut in VAT to 8 per cent. would create some 87,000 new jobs in the United Kingdom, increase foreign currency earnings by £1.2 billion and generate an extra 10 million tourists for Britain. Of course, Scotland would receive a proportional increase.
This has necessarily been a short debate. I believe that tourism merits more than simply a lottery of applications for Adjournment debates. Therefore, I have a specific recommendation for the Minister. Earlier today, I checked with the Clerk of the Scottish Affairs Committee as to whether that Committee had undertaken any projects on tourism. Apparently, it has not investigated that subject since its inception—despite the fact that 8 per cent. of Scotland's work force is employed in the industry.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: My hon. Friend may have noticed that the Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey), is in the Chamber and has heard her comments. No doubt the Committee will take on board my hon. Friend's excellent suggestions.

Mrs. Ewing: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is a hard-working member of that Committee. I am sure that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. McKelvey) will take my comments on board.
I understand that this Thursday, the National Heritage Committee is commencing an inquiry into tourism. It will hear evidence from the Scottish tourist board on 20 June, and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities has made an approach to submit written evidence to the Committee. However, the inquiry places no emphasis on Scotland's tourist industry and only one of the Committee's 11 members is from Scotland.
I have been advised that the Committee will find it difficult to deal with issues pertaining to Scottish and Welsh tourism because of the complexities in the system. Therefore, I urge the Scottish Affairs Committee to take the issue on board. It should assess the international, national and local impact of tourism, take evidence from all who are involved in the industry and then make positive recommendations. Scotland has a dream to sell, but that dream also provides employment and hope for our constituents and hope for our national economy.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Kynoch): I congratulate the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) on being selected to introduce the debate today. I agree with her comments about the way in which tourism contributes to Scotland's economy. During my short reply, I hope to demonstrate the high priority that the Government attach to supporting the industry and to assisting it to develop and meet the challenges that it faces.
The industry enjoyed a very good year in 1995: expenditure by tourists in Scotland increased by about 7 per cent. to £2.165 million, and the upward trend in the number of overseas visitors continues. Most encouragingly, the recent decline in the number of trips


from England was halted. English tourism turnover increased by 11 per cent. in real terms in 1995. While talking to my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) before the debate commenced, I was horrified to learn that he has never visited Scotland. I am sure that the hon. Lady will join me in recommending that he visit Scotland very soon. Many in the tourist industry are reporting increased business this year and I believe that the industry can look to the future with confidence.
The hon. Lady called for a review of the tourism industry. In 1992–93, we conducted a review of the way in which support is provided to the industry. One of the most important outcomes of that review was the preparation of a national tourism strategy. The strategy analysed the performance of Scotland's tourism industry and identified the action that must be taken by those who support the industry and by the industry itself if it is to meet its long-term potential as a major generator of income and employment in Scotland. The hon. Lady is absolutely correct: the tourism industry employs 8 per cent. of the Scottish work force. The figure is even higher in the highlands and islands, at about 20 per cent.
Local tourism strategies are also being prepared in respect of each tourist board area. Together with the national strategy, they will address many of the difficulties caused by fragmentation, about which the hon. Lady is concerned. The Scottish Tourism Co-ordinating Group, which I chair, comprises the chairmen and chief executives of all the public sector agencies involved in supporting the industry, plus the chairman of the Scottish Tourism Forum, which brings together the private sector. It is charged with overseeing the implementation of the national strategy, and I am pleased to tell the House that it is making good progress. Earlier this year, I published a report reviewing that progress, so I shall draw attention to only a few key points today.
One priority was to tackle the problem of seasonality and to extend the season. That is very important, as much of Scotland's tourism is concentrated into the tight period from June to August. We clearly need to do more to encourage visitors to come in the spring and the autumn— which I assure the House, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford, are excellent months to holiday in Scotland. The first initiative was the "Autumn Gold" campaign in the United Kingdom, which was designed to increase the number of visitors to Scotland during October and November last year. I have reported to the Scottish Grand Committee that the campaign proved a great success and generated an estimated additional spend of £9.7 million. Not unsurprisingly, we shall repeat it this year, when I hope that many more visitors will be encouraged to sample the benefits and delights that Scotland has to offer at that time of year.
The hon. Lady mentioned skills and training. Enhancing the skills of all those who work in the industry is essential if we are to tackle some of the problems that she mentioned. We are giving a high priority to management development, to encouraging the industry and employees to become involved in the Investors in People initiative, to developing improved links with the education sector in order to advise prospective employees and to developing initiatives on customer care, to increase standards of quality and professionalism in the industry.
The hon. Lady referred to funding. Last year, we provided to the industry direct support of about £70 million through agencies and local authorities. That is not an exact figure, as there are many areas in which support is being given and it is not easy to identify the specific amount that goes to tourism.
The hon. Member for Perth and Kinross (Ms Cunningham) will be interested to know—and this is where the Secretary of State's commitment comes in— that this year we have increased the resources made available to the Scottish tourist board by 20 per cent., to about £18 million—a record level. The additional funding will enable the board to strengthen its marketing campaigns, both in the United Kingdom and overseas, and to provide substantial additional assistance to Scotland's area tourist boards. We have also provided additional funding to take advantage of specific opportunities that will benefit the industry.
The hon. Member for Moray mentioned promoting Scotland on the back of films. We contributed about £280,000 to the STB in the last financial year, to mount a promotional campaign in Europe to maximise the tourism spin-off from "Braveheart". Not all that long ago, I launched a campaign in the south-east of England on the back of the introduction of low-cost fares to Scotland, to encourage those in the south-east of England to visit Scotland and see its benefits.

Mrs. Ewing: I welcome low-cost fares, but will not the absence of the Motorail service to Fort William undermine many opportunities to visit tourist attractions in the north of Scotland? We experienced the chaos over the Fort William sleeper; there are still no Motorail facilities. Could consideration be given to trying to restore some of those facilities?

Mr. Kynoch: I am sure that the hon. Lady will not be surprised to know that, wearing my constituency hat, I recognise the benefits that Motorail brought, particularly to our part of Scotland. Clearly, Motorail has to be a commercial success for it to be maintained. I was pleased to see the other day in a newspaper that the new franchisee for, I think, the east coast line is considering introducing a form of Motorail service to Scotland, possibly to Edinburgh—clearly, I would encourage that. Private sector involvement provides all sorts of opportunities to identify services that can contribute towards tourism in Scotland.
The hon. Lady referred to value added tax. While the United Kingdom's tourist operators may face higher VAT rates than some of their competitors in other EU countries, they do not face many other costs. The hon. Lady will not be surprised to hear me mention the social chapter, minimum wage legislation or local tourism taxes that are applicable elsewhere. In Scotland, we have a significant premium product that attracts tourists. I do not believe that VAT is the key element to success in Scotland.
The review of support arrangements for the tourism industry found that there was widespread support for a smaller number of larger area tourist boards. We acted on that information and on 1 April this year, a new network of 14 boards was created, replacing the former 31. The new structure is already beginning to bring benefits and will be a great success. The area boards, together with the Scottish tourist board, can provide the lead for the tourism industry, both locally and nationally.
The hon. Lady referred to our joint local tourist board—Aberdeen and Grampian—which she rightly said corresponded to the area of the former NESCOT tourism marketing group. The new area tourist board arrangements mirror almost exactly the arrangements that applied prior to the reorganisation on 1 April. The tourism review concluded that the concept of a locally determined and funded industry and local authority partnership, supported by the STB, generally worked well and should be continued. About 80 per cent. of those commenting on the arrangements at local level commended the system, and I believe that they were correct to do so.
Although the boards have been established by statute, we have provided, as we were asked, that decisions about funding support should remain, as they have always been, at the complete discretion of local authorities. Similarly, the boards should have discretion to determine their priorities and operational arrangements, including the operation of tourist information centres, which the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) mentioned. I have no powers to intervene in those matters and I currently have no plans to alter the arrangements.
Earlier, I drew attention to the additional funding that we are providing this year to the Scottish tourist board. From that funding, £700,000 of extra funding will go directly to the area tourist boards, and all 14 boards will benefit as a result. The grant to the Aberdeen and Grampian tourist board from the Scottish tourist board has risen from £257,000 last year to £285,000 this year—an increase of 10.9 per cent. That demonstrates the importance that the Government attach to the work of the area tourist boards and our commitment to their success.
I clearly look to the local authorities to show a similar level of commitment, and I understand that most have done so by maintaining or increasing their level of spend. I deeply regret that in my area, the north-east, the local authorities have reduced their expenditure. It is for the authorities to decide the priority that is to be attached to tourism in their area and to reflect that priority in the level of funding that they provide to their local tourist board. I have no powers to intervene.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) referred to the possibility of a three-year rolling programme. It is important that the board and its funding partners adopt a local strategy that will apply for a number of years. The Scottish tourist board would be willing to assist in preparing such a strategy if that would help our local tourist board, and I hope that that offer will be taken up.
The hon. Member for Moray mentioned local enterprise companies and the fact that they had previously contributed. The hon. Lady's LEC was almost unique among LECs in contributing to the core funding of local tourist boards. Following the tourism review and the clarification of responsibilities, it is no longer expected that LECs should provide core funding. Because of tourism's economic significance or potential in many parts of Scotland, LECs will—as the hon. Lady said—be prepared to fund, jointly with tourist boards, individual projects. I understand that Grampian Enterprise is willing to forge such partnerships and to consider supporting appropriate projects.
While the support arrangements that we have introduced are much clearer, if the hon. Lady would like to provide me with specific examples of areas where she believes local enterprise companies could further assist the area tourist board, I should be more than happy to consider them and take them to the Scottish Tourism Co-ordinating Group for discussion.
The hon. Lady referred to Ireland and the use of European funding. We must consider the overall funding that goes into tourism. I think that the hon. Lady will find that the overall level is not that different. As she rightly said, objective 1 funding in the highlands and islands area provides for specific projects relating to tourism. The fact that the whole of Ireland has objective 1 status makes it different.
In conclusion, I believe that the Scottish tourism industry has a positive future. I join the hon. Lady in recognising its importance to the economy of Scotland, not just for employment, but for the success of many small businesses, not just in her area, but in mine and elsewhere in Scotland. I shall seek to encourage tourists to come to as many parts of Scotland as possible—many simply come to our capital, Edinburgh, and do not find time to go beyond it, although there are many attractions further north.
I know that the Scottish tourist board, under its chief executive, Derek Reid, has made significant strides in the expansion of the promotion of tourism in Scotland. Some of the recent statistics have proved that we are achieving success, although that is not to say that more cannot be done. The co-ordinating group serves a useful purpose in bringing together all the interested parties to co-ordinate all activities to one common aim.
Our investment is substantial and the tourism industry itself is demonstrating the will to succeed. I believe that it will succeed.

Driver Theory Testing Station (Southport)

Mr. Matthew Banks: It is a great pleasure to have the opportunity during this short lunch-time Adjournment debate to raise the important question of the provision of a driver theory testing station in my constituency. I am pleased to see my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London in his place. I look forward to a positive reply at the end of the debate and I have discussed this matter with him in private meetings and, latterly, in correspondence.
The House will know that I have long had an interest in transport, since before I came into the House. When I was first elected to the House in 1992, I was appointed to the Select Committee on Transport. Before I rose to the dizzy heights of being parliamentary private secretary at the Department of Transport, I was first the secretary and latterly the vice-chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench transport committee. Although I am a firm supporter of Government policy on transport, I have occasionally taken the opportunities afforded to me as a Member of the House, and as a member of those Committees, to affect and to effect Government policy on transport.
There have been a number of notable successes, including rail privatisation, environmental matters relating to transport and aviation policy. During that period, my hon. Friend has been a Transport Minister and I know that he has been well disposed to listen to, and act on, the lucid, well-argued and detailed proposals that I have put before him. I hope that he will do so at the end of the debate today.
My hon. Friend the Minister knows the geography of my constituency well, and he also comes from the north-west. He has listened, as I have mentioned, to my lobbying behind the scenes on behalf of my constituents, on this and other issues, and has also received correspondence from me. I hope that, by raising this matter on the Floor of the House, I may be able to elicit a more positive response than I have hitherto received.
There has been the odd rumour that my hon. Friend the Minister might seek to leave the Government before leaving the House at the end of the Parliament. I know nothing of my hon. Friend's plans, but if the rumour is true, that will be a terrible loss for the Government. If I may say so, those of us who know my hon. Friend well wish him well for the future. There could be no more fitting tribute for somebody from the north-west, who has been such a successful Transport Minister as my hon. Friend has, than the provision, for future generations, of a driver theory testing station in Southport. If my hon. Friend has, could be a little more positive on the issue—I know that resources are tight—I would be the first to think of the station as the Steve Norris theory testing school.
The driving test was first introduced in 1935 when the first candidate was Mr. Bean. Apart from the scrapping of hand signals—for which another Mr. Bean is famous—in 1975, the test remained largely unchanged, until the European Commission insisted that new drivers face a theory test. Britain's multiple-choice papers, with questions designed to weed out over-aggressive candidates, will be introduced in due course. The theory test is an important part of Government policy and I have no doubt that it will improve road safety. Accident statistics and research have shown that young and inexperienced drivers are several times more likely to be involved in accidents and fatalities than more mature drivers.
The test complies with the second European Community directive on driver licensing and I have had the pleasure of spending much time in European Standing Committee A, also with my hon. Friend the Minister, dealing with the issue of driving licences. My hon. Friend knows my concern about the competence of the European Commission to take decisions that should be taken by member states of the European Union. He also knows that I am concerned about the competence of the Transport Commissioner, Mr. Kinnock, but I shall leave that subject for another Adjournment debate on another day.
Although Britain is the only country without a theory test, we have the safest roads measured by casualties. However, I am not complacent. I believe, and I expect, that people will become safer drivers by preparing for the theory test. I hope that my hon. Friend will adopt one small suggestion and ensure that one or two questions in the test cover drivers' awareness of cyclists and motorcyclists. It is important to crack down on the number of casualties among those road users, as well as among car drivers, and to increase the driver's awareness of the motorcyclist.
That said, we cannot achieve those aims satisfactorily without the provision of a theory testing station in Southport. I want my constituents to be able to take their practical test and their theory test in Southport. It is not good enough that my constituents should be expected to travel to Liverpool or to Preston. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that my constituency was proudly independent before 1974. He also knows that, against all the odds, we shall be unique as the only metropolitan area considered by the Local Government Commission for independent status. We shall break away and make our own decisions locally as we once did.
We do not want to have to go to Liverpool or Preston for a theory test. Before 1974, we never had to go to Preston to deal with Lancashire county council because it never held sway over our affairs. We did not have to go to Liverpool to deal with Merseyside county council. We were independent. My hon. Friend could give my constituents and myself an enormous fillip in that campaign, too, by ensuring that we are independent in driver theory testing. I am fed up with people in Liverpool telling us what we can do. We should make decisions locally.
On 29 May, my hon. Friend the Minister wrote his last letter to me on this subject and he drew attention to the railway line between Southport and Liverpool. Due to the policies of the Labour-controlled Merseyside passenger transport authority, that line is the least subsidised line of the Mersey rail network, with some of the most expensive fares in Britain, apart from certain services out of Fenchurch Street in London. The Merseyside passenger transport authority does not allow us to travel by train between Southport and Preston, because my predecessor in the House was so wholly unsuccessful in restoring a piece of track taken away by Beeching.
The only other railway we have that links my constituency with the west coast main line is the Southport to Wigan line and not a single penny has been spent to promote, protect or maintain that line, not even the part in Merseyside which is in my constituency. That is totally unacceptable. No wonder my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment described me as the only real bulwark that my constituents have against a Greater Bootle.
I do not know whether the rumours are true that not only does my hon. Friend the Minister know my constituency well but, years ago, he sold some second-hand motor vehicles—fine ones, I am sure—at the northern and southern ends of Lord street in the centre of town. He might also have enjoyed the odd boozy business lunch at the best hotel in town. I know that he knows Southport well and that he will have listened over the weeks to the representations that I have made privately, in writing and now on the Floor of the House. He has listened to detailed arguments, which I hope have been well argued, and I hope that he will be able to act positively on them. I hope that he will look back with fond memories of his time in Southport and I urge him to consider the fact that there could be no finer tribute to his successful tenure as a Transport Minister than providing a theory testing station in Southport.
If my right hon. Friend can give me a positive response, I look forward at some stage to being able to invite him back to Southport to visit the theory testing station and, perhaps when he has finished driving for the day, I might be able to enjoy a celebratory glass of champagne with him and my constituents.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): In all the years that I have had the honour to be a Minister, I have seldom heard a more oleaginous and sycophantic appeal to my better nature than that expertly articulated by my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Mr. Banks). As I do indeed consider pastures elsewhere and contemplate the words of Sir Christopher Wren—"Si monumentum requiris, circumspice"—I can think of no greater monument than a theory testing centre in Southport where, as my hon. Friend rightly said, I passed a considerable part of my misspent youth. I enjoyed a great deal of that time in the Prince of Wales, which was a fine establishment in those days, although I have no idea what it is like now. I was indeed proprietor of several distinguished premises in the town, at both ends of Lord street. A man has to earn a living—I make no other comment.
As to the crowning achievement of my entire stint at the Department of Transport, rivalling that of Hore-Belisha and my noble Friend Lady Chalker, let me turn to the matter in hand. The specification for the establishment of theory testing centres was based on responses to the Driving Standards Agency's customer surveys. Driving test candidates and their instructors said that they thought that it was reasonable to travel up to 20 miles for a driving test. A national network of theory testing centres has been developed broadly on that basis and they will run frequent test sessions to meet candidates' needs.
As my hon. Friend said, we have come late to the business of theory testing and I make no apology for the fact that, in due course, we shall perhaps move further than the present theory test, which is a written test, to the use of interactive technology that will enable us to test hazard perception in a more realistic environment than we are able to do with the written test alone.
My hon. Friend was, however, entirely right to concentrate on the fact that the theory test exists principally because the greatest cause of death among young people is the road accident. Seventeen to 25-year-old drivers have a particular propensity to accidents and injury. They comprise 10 per cent. of licence holders but, sadly, 20 per cent. of casualties and 25 per cent. of fatalities. It is in that

context that we have introduced the theory test and done so to approbation on both sides of the House. There was no disagreement about the desirability of that happening.
The specification for test centre location requires that a test centre should be available within 20 miles but in districts—usually towns or cities where the population density is greater than 1,250 people per sq km—a test centre should be available within about five miles, as that is clearly a more appropriate measure in a dense conurbation. For the record, in more sparsely populated areas with low populations, test centres should be available within 40 miles because the nexus of time and distance can be regarded in a slightly different light when there is much less impediment from traffic or population.
It is on that basis that my hon. Friend made representations to me about his constituency, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) whom I am delighted to see in his place. Convention demands that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford cannot speak in these debates, but I can take it as read that, were he able to do so, the paean that would fall from his lips would equal that of my hon. Friend. I was delighted to be able to accommodate the forceful and articulate representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford made to me on precisely this subject in relation to his own constituency and that his constituents will now enjoy that facility.
The original plan for the theory testing centre serving the Southport area was to put test centres at Liverpool and Preston. However, those plans did not necessarily properly address the fact that Southport lies in the administrative district of Sefton, which forms a strip stretching along the Mersey coastline, and Sefton has more than 1,250 people per sq km. The southern part of the district is within five miles of the theory testing centre at Liverpool but Southport, at the northern end of the strip, is 20 miles by road from the Liverpool centre. The theory testing centre proposals covering Southport did not therefore meet the precise specified requirement because residents would not have a theory test centre within five miles.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Southport for drawing this error in the application of the service specification to my attention and, even at this stage, giving me the opportunity to set matters right.
While my hon. Friend knows that I would not dream of touching his champagne for all sorts of reasons, not least my fear and terror of the good Lord Nolan—not to mention my aversion to drinking and driving—I am happy to tell him that I have given directions for an additional theory testing centre to be sited in Southport. He has, in the vernacular much practised in my constituency, got a result. I congratulate him on it.

It being fourteen minutes to Two o 'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

Iraq

Lady Olga Maitland: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement regarding United Nations sanctions on Iraq. [30842]

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): Sanctions will stay in place until Iraq fulfils its obligations under the relevant UN Security Council resolutions. Implementation of resolution 986 will give welcome relief to the Iraqi people, whose suffering Saddam has caused.

Lady Olga Maitland: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that implementation of United Nations resolution 986 could be misinterpreted by the Iraqis as weakness? I mention that particularly in the light of the fact that, yesterday, United Nations inspectors were deliberately obstructed by the Iraqis when they went to visit a site in west Baghdad, where they believed that there were weapons of mass destruction, and the Iraqis are still holding more than 600 missing Kuwaitis and prisoners of war. One woman was released just a month ago, having been taken when she was only 14 years old. She is now a wreck. She had been raped and tortured. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that we must, with all diligence, press the Iraqis to comply with all United Nations resolutions before we give them any more assistance?

Mr. Rifkind: Yesterday's incident confirms, as my hon. Friend has shown, why it is necessary for general sanctions to remain against Iraq until it fully complies with United Nations resolutions, including resolutions with regard to those who have been unlawfully detained in Iraq since the end of the Gulf war. Resolution 986 was concerned purely with humanitarian matters, and it is because the United Kingdom and the United States were determined to ensure that no loopholes could be exploited by Saddam Hussein that the negotiations took a long time. I am pleased to say that there was a satisfactory result.

Mr. Dalyell: What about the 500,000 or more Iraqi children who have died in the past few years as a result of disease and malnutrition? What does the Foreign Office have to say about the reports of the most recent travellers to Iraq which confirm the appalling stagnation of water and waterborne diseases that occur there?

Mr. Rifkind: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, sanctions have never applied to food or medicines. Therefore, if aid has not reached people in Iraq, that must be entirely the responsibility of the Iraqi Government.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the Iraqi regime is one of the most evil— if not the most evil—regimes in the world? It ill behoves any hon. Member to give it any comfort when it has ignored the plight of its own people, the plight of the Kurds and the

plight of the Kuwaitis, and when it rained down Scud missiles on innocent Israelis in 1991. It is an evil regime and it should get no help from anyone in the House.

Mr. Rifkind: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend, whose views will be commended to the House as a whole.

EU Presidency

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet the Irish Foreign Minister to discuss the priorities of the forthcoming Irish presidency of the European Union. [30843]

Mr. Rifkind: I expect to meet the Irish Foreign Minister on 17 June.

Mr. Jones: Does the Secretary of State agree that one of the priorities of the next six months for the European Union will be to ensure the success of elections in Bosnia? How, then, would it help Britain's campaign to lift the beef ban for us to block financial assistance for those elections? Is that not another reason why the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath), last night described the Government's policies on the beef ban as lamentable and why he called on the Government to rescind them?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman is just a little out of date. He is obviously unaware that we did not block the proposal for assistance for the Bosnian elections when it came up on Monday. The hon. Gentleman should do his homework before he asks questions.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it is important to gear up for the forthcoming intergovernmental conference because the policy of non-co-operation will, we hope, not last for ever and because we shall at some stage resume normal business?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, and even at this moment we are participating fully in the discussions within the intergovernmental conference. The concept of an empty chair was a French initiative, not a British one, and is not one that we have chosen to follow.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Will the Secretary of State be surprised, when he meets his Irish counterpart, to find that his priority is to persuade the United Kingdom to abandon its policy of non-co-operation? What possible justification is there for this policy which aggravates our European partners and, so far, has produced nothing? The United Kingdom would not negotiate under duress. Why do we expect our European partners to do so?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. and learned Gentleman may have heard the President of the European Commission say yesterday that he was now optimistic that there could be an agreement next week on a framework for the lifting, phase by phase, of the ban on British beef. No one was making that prediction a week or 10 days ago.

China

Mr. Pawsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action he is taking to strengthen the relationship between China and the United Kingdom. [30844]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Jeremy Hanley): We maintain an active programme of contacts with the Chinese at ministerial and official level. Most recently, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister made a highly successful visit to China and Hong Kong last month.

Mr. Pawsey: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. Is there any action that he could take to increase the resources and support available to Chinese students who come to the United Kingdom to study English at British universities? Does he accept that, if he were able to increase the resources, much would be done further to improve the relationship between China and the United Kingdom? I have little doubt that, if that were done, a substantial dividend would come back to the UK.

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, in terms not only of Chinese students but of students the world over. An increasing number of students come to the United Kingdom both to learn English and to learn a broader curriculum. The money that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spends on granting scholarships and encouraging exchanges is money well spent.

Mr. Llew Smith: What representations has the Minister made to the Chinese Government on the recent nuclear test and the adverse effect that that could have on the negotiations for a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty? What information has he received on the hijack of the Greenpeace ship which was on its way to protest about the tests?

Mr. Hanley: We have long said that we want an indefinite end to all testing. That is why we have been negotiating hard for the early conclusion of a comprehensive test ban treaty; that is our priority. China has said that it, too, is committed to these negotiations. We note that China has announced a moratorium to take effect after a final test in September and I hope that that means that the Chinese are keeping to their commitment. It is now for them to demonstrate their commitment by being prepared to conclude negotiations by the end of June and to sign the treaty, along with all other countries, in the autumn. We have absolutely no plans to resume testing. All other nuclear weapons states have now ceased testing and I hope that China will follow that example.

Mr. Waterson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the biggest single contribution that the Chinese Government can make to Sino-British relations will be to ensure that the principle of two systems in one country is given effect when Hong Kong is handed back to China and to take steps to recognise the rule of law, free speech and free enterprise in that colony?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I cannot add to what he has said.

Hong Kong

Mrs. Bridget Prentice: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what proposals the Government have for ensuring that elected members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council are able to continue as members of the proposed provisional legislature. [30845]

Mr. Rifkind: The members of Hong Kong's Legislative Council were properly elected in free and open elections in September 1995 which were fully consistent with the joint declaration and the Basic Law. It is for China to justify any decision to dissolve the present Legislative Council and to establish a provisional legislature, on which I have made the Government's position clear.

Mrs. Prentice: Can the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that the administrative arrangements that the Government have put in place will remain intact after July 1997?

Mr. Rifkind: We believe that is what ought to happen. After July 1997 we are no longer the sovereign power, but it would be against the interests of the people of Hong Kong—as they have clearly demonstrated—to interfere with the legislature that has been established.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Foreign Secretary will be aware that I recently visited Hong Kong. May I advise him that there is no issue that more affects confidence in the future of Hong Kong than the stated intention of China to replace the elected LegCo with an appointed LegCo? When the Prime Minister asked about that, he said that no options were ruled out for pressure on China. Can the Foreign Secretary tell us what those options might be and exactly how the Government plan to restore a through train for democracy in Hong Kong?

Mr. Rifkind: It is important for China to appreciate that interest in the welfare of Hong Kong is not just to be found within the territory or within the United Kingdom. There is great international interest. I have discussed these matters with President Clinton and his colleagues in the United States. President Chirac of France and others have raised the question of Hong Kong with the Chinese authorities. Therefore, there will be great global interest in what happens and the Chinese Government will need to reassure the entire international community that the welfare of Hong Kong will be properly safeguarded. The best way to do that is, as the hon. Gentleman said, by confirming that the Legislative Council will be allowed to continue in its normal way.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome what my right hon. and learned Friend has just said. Does he agree that any attempt by China to make the Legislative Council appointed rather than democratically elected, as it is now, would make a mockery of any agreement that China would reach with the United Kingdom on two systems, one country after 1997? Is he aware of the strong feeling in the House as to how appalling that would be for the people of Hong Kong and will he ensure that the international pressure that he has just mentioned will be applied to China if that ever happens?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes. I agree with my hon. Friend. The Chinese have said that the appointed provisional


legislature would be replaced by an elected Legislative Council. Hong Kong already has an elected Legislative Council. Such a reform is neither necessary nor desired by the people of Hong Kong. Therefore, it would be far more sensible for the Chinese authorities to accept that it will be consistent with the stability and welfare of the territory.

Kashmir

Mr. Simpson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the British hostages in Kashmir. [30846]

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Sir Nicholas Bonsor): We continue to work closely with the Indian and other Governments involved in our efforts to secure the release of the hostages. We very much hope that recent reports that they are no longer alive are untrue.

Mr. Simpson: Does the Minister agree it was quite irresponsible of the press to have run stories recently announcing the death of the hostages when there have been a series of unconfirmed sightings since their death was supposed to have taken place? Will he give an assurance to the friends, colleagues and fellow students of Paul Wells in my constituency that there have a number of confirmed sightings of the hostages still alive? Will he give the House an assurance that the British Government are actively pursuing the safe negotiated release of the British hostages?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I entirely agree with him that the reports of the possible death of the hostages are profoundly unhelpful. I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he requires: the British Government are making every effort to find the hostages in the hope that they are still alive. We shall continue to work on that basis until we have a more concrete reason to believe that that is not true. I sincerely hope that we never reach that stage and that we can find the hostages and secure their release.

Hong Kong

Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government are taking to ensure that Hong Kong has a smooth transition to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. [30847]

Mr. Hanley: We are committed to doing everything in our power to secure a successful transition for Hong Kong based on the provisions of the joint declaration. We continue to discuss detailed arrangements for the transfer of sovereignty with the Chinese Government at all levels.

Mr. McAvoy: Does the Minister agree that the interests of the people of Hong Kong are paramount, and that the transfer of sovereignty demands a spirit of co-operation and friendliness between the Chinese and British Governments? If he does agree, can he tell us how the gratuitously offensive comments made by him and by the Foreign Secretary about the Chinese Government will help to ensure that the transition takes place in a co-operative and friendly manner?

Mr. Hanley: I just turned to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and found that, like me,

he is mystified by the hon. Gentleman's reference to gratuitously insulting comments. We have the friendliest relations with China; our relations have improved dramatically over the past 12 months alone. The meetings that we have had at all levels have been constructive and friendly. I believe that those relations have helped to settle a number of issues that were outstanding in regard to Hong Kong and the transfer of sovereignty, and to improve the position.
My right hon. and learned Friend and I have met Qian Qichen, and my right hon. and learned Friend has met a wide range of leaders in Peking. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister met Premier Li Peng in Bangkok only last March, and in April my right hon. and learned Friend and I met Qian Qichen in The Hague. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has conducted a very successful trade mission, accompanied by nearly 280 business people. That was a tremendous occasion, which greatly enhanced our relationship with China. All those meetings were in the interests of Hong Kong and her people.

Malawi

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held, and with whom, in respect of the present political situation in Malawi. [30849]

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Overseas Development keeps in close touch with developments in Malawi, and had discussions with President Muluzi at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November 1995.

Mr. Butler: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the economic, social and, most of all, political stability of Malawi is essential to the wider stability of the southern region of Africa? What are Her Majesty's Government doing to promote that, and what aid is being given in all respects to ensure that it remains?

Mr. Hanley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for concentrating on a country that receives little notice in the House—which is a shame, because we consider that the principles of good government have improved there. There is press freedom and freedom of speech, there is a genuine debate in Parliament, and the International Committee of the Red Cross now has unrestricted access. Moreover, an anti-corruption bureau has recently been established. That is why we continue to be the largest bilateral donor to Malawi. In 1995, we spent about £40 million, of which £12 million was balance of payments support; to that we can add our share of multilateral aid, which is approximately £3 million.

Mrs. Dunwoody: Will the Minister guarantee not only that the United Kingdom will continue to provide such support but that we will understand that the enormous economic problems that Malawi faces will put great stresses and strains on the democratic procedure? I hope that the Foreign Office has no intention of either lowering the current representation in Malawi or undermining our important relationship in any way.

Mr. Hanley: I thank the hon. Lady for pointing out that our presence may be giving some help to the reform


process in Malawi, and for confirming that the economy there is shaky. We must do what we can to help, and we shall certainly try to ensure that our representation and our aid are maintained. These matters are all part of wider economic issues, but the hon. Lady's comments will be taken into account.

European Union

Mr. Macdonald: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will conduct a study into the consequences of a British withdrawal from the European Union. [30850]

Mr. Rifkind: We have no such intention. We need to promote and protect our interests from within the EU, not from outside.

Mr. Macdonald: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that withdrawal from the European Union would be a disaster for Britain? Does he further agree with the chairman of the European committee of the Confederation of British Industry that the growing support for such a policy among Tory Back Benchers is causing serious damage to British business interests in Europe?

Mr. Rifkind: It would be profoundly against the interests of the United Kingdom ever to contemplate withdrawal from the EU. There are members of all parties who have long held the view that withdrawal is an option that they would favour, but that is for them to explain to their respective parties.

Sir Richard Body: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that an educational charity has been searching for a long time for an economist of some standing—from either the business or the academic world—to produce a cost-benefit analysis of our membership of the European Community leading to a favourable conclusion? So far, the charity has failed to find such an expert. Can my right hon. and learned Friend help that charity, or the rest of us, by naming someone willing to carry out that task?

Mr. Rifkind: In his characteristically objective pursuit of the truth, my hon. Friend will wish to be fully informed about the benefits and any possible disadvantages of the European Union. I am sure that the European Commission would be happy to help him, but many others are able to provide a positive endorsement.

Mr. Charles Kennedy: What are the consequences of the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames (Mr. Lamont), the former Chancellor of the Exchequer— one of the prime movers in the Maastricht agreement— producing a paper in which he examines the mechanics and practicalities of withdrawal? Is that not extremely damaging?

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman has not seen it or read it.

Mr. Kennedy: The right hon. Member for Kingston upon Thames may not have read the treaty, but neither did the then Home Secretary, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. The hon. Member for Colchester, North (Mr. Jenkin) is not on strong ground there. Is it not

extremely damaging to the international reputation of this country that the former Chancellor is now taking that view? Is it not time that the Government showed some leadership against the malcontents on their Back Benches, who are damaging not only the Government—that is their problem—but the rest of us in the process?

Mr. Rifkind: I see that matter as no more significant than the fact that the Leader of the Opposition campaigned for Britain to withdraw from the EU and now wishes to support our membership. These are characteristics that occasionally appear in the House.

Mr. Dykes: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give a date when British Ministers will start saying that our membership of the EU is a good thing, as the only one who does so at present is the Chancellor of the Exchequer?

Mr. Rifkind: As I said that some 30 seconds ago, my hon. Friend has been overtaken by events.

Mr. Salmond: When the Foreign Secretary was Secretary of State for Scotland, would he have encouraged his parliamentary private secretary to attend meetings to discuss the mechanics of withdrawal from the EU, as the current Secretary of State has done?

Mr. Rifkind: I see no objection to private discussions taking place. The idea that the Government—or, indeed, the hon. Gentleman—should dictate to colleagues which meetings they attend for the purposes of intellectual discussions seems to be an extraordinary display of totalitarian tendencies which I am surprised to see from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it serves no purpose that, every time someone criticises the way in which European institutions work or suggests an alternative way in which they might be reformed, a group of Europhiles immediately accuse him of wanting to leave the EU? Would not the CBI do a greater service to British business if it explained the issues and invited contributions from all shades of opinion on Europe, instead of campaigning manically for one particular view?

Mr. Rifkind: I certainly believe—as, I am sure, does my hon. Friend—that the real issue is not whether the United Kingdom should or should not be in the European Union, but what kind of European Union we wish to see develop. That is a legitimate debate not only within the United Kingdom but throughout all the member states.

Mr. Robin Cook: If the Foreign Secretary's robust statement of commitment to the European Union represents Government policy, can he explain why half the Conservative Members not on the payroll vote voted with the Euro-sceptics yesterday? Will he take this opportunity to tell them that they should listen to the chorus of dismay from business leaders? Will he tell the most vocal of them to give back the funds that he has taken from Sir James Goldsmith, who made his financial mark by buying up companies and is making his political mark by buying up the Conservative party? If he will not do those things, or cannot convince his Back Benchers,


will it not be all too plain that the only referendum that will give Britain a fresh start in Europe is a general election that will enable the people to get rid of this divided and incompetent Government?

Mr. Rifkind: I notice that the hon. Gentleman wished to draw attention to the fact that Sir James Goldsmith and the Referendum party appear to have certain links with certain of my hon. Friends. Curious links between different political parties do not affect only my party. I noticed recently that Mr. Zyuganov, the Russian communist candidate, said that he was looking forward to meeting the Leader of the Opposition because he believed that the Russian Communist party and new Labour had so much in common. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to encourage an investigation to expose those extraordinary and sinister links.

Mr. Garnier: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the consequences of leaving the European Union would be that it would be much more difficult to improve relations between Spain and Gibraltar? Will he ensure that efforts are made to relieve the present border hold-ups there? It is good for Gibraltar and for Spain that they should get on well, but it is also good for the European Union.

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. and learned Friend is indeed correct. Our common membership of the European Union makes entirely indefensible what would, in any event, be very unattractive: restrictions on movement between Gibraltar and Spain. I saw the Spanish Foreign Minister in Madrid last week and I am pleased to say that, over the past few days, the restrictions seem to have diminished considerably. I hope that that represents a new and permanent arrangement.

Bangladesh

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement about relations with Bangladesh. [30851]

Mr. Hanley: Our relations with Bangladesh are good. We look forward to maintaining and expanding our political, commercial and cultural links. Our strong hope is that today's elections will help rapidly to restore stability and economic progress.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister send his and the House's best wishes to the people of Bangladesh that today's elections are free, fair and successful? Will he also stress that it is important that whoever is elected makes the democratic process work, that the army is not tempted to interfere with the result and that countries such as the United Kingdom give the new Government every assistance to ensure that democracy can work in one of the poorest countries in the world?

Mr. Hanley: I agree with every word. The hon. Gentleman is right. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) and my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Waller) who are in Bangladesh as election observers, together with four members of the Electoral Reform Society. Let us hope that the elections lead to proper and sustainable democracy.

European Union

Ms Eagle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the benefits to Britain of United Kingdom membership of the EU. [30852]

Mr. Rifkind: The United Kingdom benefits from the contribution that the European Union has made to peace and reconciliation in the states of western Europe, from our full participation in the world's largest single market and from our ability to make a full contribution to the reaching of decisions on a wide range of issues directly relevant to British interests.

Ms Eagle: Given the Foreign Secretary's sterling support for Britain's membership of the European Union, which he also expressed in answer to an earlier question and which I assume reflects the views of the whole Cabinet, can he explain why 78 of his Back Benchers, bankrolled and led by a member of a different political party, were allowed to make such a show of Euro-sceptic obsession in the House yesterday? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Rifkind: I seem to recollect that quite a number of Labour Members also voted for that 10-minute Bill, so it is curious that the hon. Lady is so preoccupied with my hon. Friends rather than her own.

Sir Michael Marshall: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the benefits of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Union is the opportunity that it provides for us to bring into a wider European Union some of the countries for whom we have long held a moral responsibility, such as Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. We often use the term "Europe" as if it means the same as the European Union. The reality is that it never has done, but it may progressively be able to. Twelve countries have applied to join the European Union. They are almost all new democracies of central and eastern Europe. We have a great historical obligation to facilitate their entry into the European Union, and that is the policy of Her Majesty's Government.

Ms Quin: Given that the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) claimed a few minutes ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was the only Cabinet member standing up for the European Union and Britain's membership, will the Foreign Secretary take this opportunity to endorse the Chancellor's comments that were reported in today's Newcastle Journal? The Chancellor said:
Continual criticism of Brussels by Tory Euro-sceptics could stem the flow of inward investors to the North-East
and into Britain.

Mr. Rifkind: I am always happy to endorse the remarks of my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all my ministerial colleagues.

Mr. Stephen: Will my right hon. and learned Friend tell his European colleagues that withdrawal from the


European Union is not the British people's preferred option? Will he further tell them that our vision of Europe is a union of sovereign states working closely together for mutual benefit, but that our people are gravely concerned at the federalist agenda that seems to be being pursued by some of the political leaders of Europe?

Mr. Rifkind: My hon. Friend is right. As I tried to indicate a few moments ago, the debate is about what kind of European Union we should be working towards. Many of the concerns that we have expressed are to be found in France, Germany and elsewhere. History has so determined matters that the United Kingdom has tended to take the lead in presenting the alternative kind of European Union that we believe is in the best interests of Europe as a whole.

Tibet

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the Government of China regarding the situation in Tibet; and if he will make a statement. [30854]

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary discussed Tibet during his talks with the Chinese Premier and Foreign Minister in Peking in January.

Mr. Mullin: As the Minister will be aware, in the past month or so there has been a quite serious crackdown in Tibet and some people have been injured and killed. What precisely did the Foreign Secretary say to the Chinese authorities? Although I appreciate that our influence is limited, there are things that we, with our EU colleagues, could do to impress on the Chinese authorities the seriousness with which we treat the way in which they behave in Tibet.

Mr. Hanley: My right hon. and learned Friend raised the general subject of human rights in China, including the situation in Tibet, which is a matter of deep concern for us all. He also raised the issue during his meetings with Chinese leaders, not only in Peking on 9 and 10 January, but with Foreign Minister Qian Qichen in The Hague on 20 April. He raised specifically the ill treatment of children in orphanages in China, the dissident Wei Jingsheng and, as I have said, the situation in Tibet. It is also important that we work with our European partners to form a dialogue on the issue because we believe that Tibetans should have a greater say in running their own affairs. The best way in which to achieve that is through dialogue between the Chinese Government and the Tibetans, including the Dalai Lama, without preconditions. We hope that both parties can start such a dialogue without delay.

Mr. Harry Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the Tibetan people will always look to the Dalai Lama as their spiritual leader—and their political leader to boot? Will the Government accord the Dalai Lama greater recognition in that respect, especially during his forthcoming visit to this country?

Mr. Hanley: The Dalai Lama will visit the United Kingdom next month as a guest of the British Buddhist

organisations. He is a distinguished religious leader and, in accordance with previous practice, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has agreed to meet him in that capacity.

Bhutan

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on human rights in Bhutan. [30855]

Mr. Hanley: We understand that the human rights situation in southern Bhutan has improved significantly in the past three years and that the flow of refugees has almost ceased.

Mr. Winterton: As the position of the Bhutanese and Nepalese Governments is irreconcilable, with the Government of Bhutan insisting that 99 per cent. of the refugees in the camps are not Bhutanese and the Nepalese Government insisting that they are not Nepalese and that they came from Bhutan and must go back there, how can the British Government continue to argue that the best approach to solving the problem lies in bilateral talks between the Governments of Nepal and Bhutan? What assurances can my right hon. Friend give to those refugees that they will not become stateless, which many of them fear?

Mr. Hanley: My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to a serious dilemma. We believe that bilateral negotiations offer the best solution to the problem and we will continue to encourage the Governments of Bhutan and Nepal to conduct them. We take suitable opportunities to express firmly our concern to the Bhutanese about human rights. We provide humanitarian aid to support the refugees in Nepal because they are human beings, and irrespective of the status that people might give them. We have raised the issue with the Indian Government, too, on the basis of our humanitarian concern. We will continue to encourage Bhutan and Nepal in their dialogue.

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that human rights in Bhutan and throughout the Indian sub-continent are of great concern to neighbouring countries, including those that share borders with Bhutan? One of my constituents who went to visit his family not long ago was murdered at the airport and did not even get into the country. I have already written to the Minister about that case and I hope that he will take up that abuse of the human rights of one of our passport holders.

Mr. Hanley: I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would send me the details of that case, which I do not have with me. I shall certainly look into the matter.
As for talks between Bhutan and Nepal, matters are not quite as bad as some might think. The seventh round of inter-ministerial talks took place in Kathmandu in April, and ended with an agreement to continue those talks at Thimphu, although no date was set. I hope that those next talks will help to make progress towards a lasting solution to the problem.
As to the incident to which the hon. Gentleman referred, any such case must be properly investigated independently and the guilty must be brought to justice.

East Timor

Mr. Gerrard: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held recently with the Government of Indonesia on the future of East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [30857]

Mr. Hanley: Ministers most recently discussed the future of East Timor with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr. Alatas, during his visit to the United Kingdom in January.

Mr. Gerrard: I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the views of many hon. Members that, instead of selling arms to Indonesia, the Government should tell the Indonesians to end their illegal occupation of East Timor, and condemn the genocide that has been committed there. Will he specifically press the Government of Indonesia to implement fully the recommendations of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights following his visit to East Timor? Will he also press the Indonesian Government to allow a UN presence in East Timor—not just in Jakarta—and access to East Timor by human rights organisations?

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the United Kingdom does not recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor. We continue to believe that the dialogue between Portugal and Indonesia, under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General, offers the best chance of finding a just, comprehensive and internationally acceptable settlement to the question of East Timor. The next round of talks will be held this month.
I was extremely pleased to learn of the meeting between President Suharto of Indonesia and President Guterres of Portugal at the recent ASEAN—Association of South-East Asian Nations—summit in Bangkok. I hope that the Foreign Ministers of Portugal and Indonesia can take forward the issues discussed then, because that is the only way in which we can improve the situation.
We are concerned about the reports of continuing human rights abuses in Indonesia and East Timor, and we let the Indonesian Government know of our concerns. I have mentioned the meeting that I had with Foreign Minister Alatas during his visit to the United Kingdom in January. We are aware of continued violence in East Timor, and we are monitoring the situation very closely.

British Council

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to enhance the work of the British Council. [30858]

Mr. Rifkind: The British Council's activities are at record levels. The council now has 228 offices in 109 countries, compared with 108 offices in 79 countries in 1980. The revision to the grant in aid that I announced on 21 May will enable the British Council to avoid closures of its overseas offices and help to sustain its programmes overseas.

Mr. Michie: The Secretary of State has been forced to back down from his barmy plans to cut the budget of the

British Council. Will he admit that he was wrong in the first place? Will he accept that such a cut would have damaged an organisation that is vital if we are to promote British business and culture abroad? Will he behave himself in future?

Mr. Rifkind: I thank the hon. Member for his friendly advice. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the British Council did not, at first, appreciate the implications of the precise figures that were given to them. Further work was done by the British Council, and it alerted us to the implications for its overseas activities. I made it clear from the beginning that I was not prepared to see the closure of overseas offices of the British Council because we greatly value its work. It has greatly expanded under the Government and we have no desire for there to be a contraction in its overseas activities. On that basis, we reviewed its funding.

Mr. Forman: I warmly welcome the positive approach that my right hon. and learned Friend has taken towards the British Council and the way in which it has expanded overseas, but does he recognise that, from time to time, we should examine the internal workings of the British Council, particularly the structure of its regional offices? Will he assure hon. Members that that matter is being approached in as cost-effective a way as possible? There was a time when the British Council was over-manned and over-present in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rifkind: As part of the British Council's examination of its domestic operations, it has concluded that it can carry out its tasks with fewer staff than it has traditionally employed. We expect there to be a significant contraction in the number of its domestic staff and its expenditure.

Bahrain

Mr. Corbyn: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action has been taken by Her Majesty's ambassador to Bahrain concerning human rights. [30859]

Mr. Hanley: Our ambassador in Bahrain, Ian Lewty, and his staff have regular discussions with the Bahrain Government. I will be visiting Bahrain next week to discuss a wide range of issues, including human rights.

Mr. Corbyn: I am pleased to hear that the Minister will be visiting Bahrain next week. Will he carry with him a copy of an early-day motion, signed by a substantial number of hon. Members, that refers to human rights abuses in Bahrain, to the Bahraini Government's abuse of trade union positions and to the lack of respect for human rights by that country? We get the impression that if Britain sells arms to, and does a lot of trade with, a country, the Government are unconcerned about systematic abuses of human rights there.

Mr. Hanley: Her Majesty's Government deplore all abuses of human rights, wherever they take place. We treat all allegations of human rights abuses seriously. We frequently raise human rights issues with other Governments. Whether we should express concern and


how best to do so are questions that we address carefully in each case. Bahrain gave a full response to allegations of human rights abuses to the UNHCR in June 1995.
I hope to discuss topical issues with the Bahraini Government next week, including the accusations that are included in documents such as the early-day motion. I shall take it with me to Bahrain. As I said, our ambassador and I raise human rights issues with the Bahraini authorities because we have to respond to the many questions that come from Lord Avebury and hon. Members on specific issues. I have always found the Bahraini authorities most co-operative. I hope that that will be the case next week.

Burma

Mr. Miller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Burma regarding human rights in Burma. [30860]

Mr. Hanley: The United Kingdom has had no ministerial contact with the ruling military regime in Burma, the State Law and Order Restoration Council— SLORC—but we regularly raise our concerns about human rights in Burma at official level.

Mr. Miller: I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is inadequate simply to criticise SLORC from the sidelines. We all deplore that regime. When considering the plight of people in UNHCR camps, will he have regard to the examples set by Canada, the United States and Australia—which have established small resettlement programmes for people in those camps—particularly when those people have legitimate links with families in Britain who could meet their needs and support them?

Mr. Hanley: I agree with the spirit behind the hon. Gentleman's question, but I disagree with his suggestion that we are somehow sniping from the sidelines—we are not. On 7 June, our ambassador, Robert Gordon, was sent to the SLORC with a déemarche urging it, first, to free those who were detained immediately; secondly, to permit Burma's pro-democracy groups and others freedom of speech, movement and association in fulfilment of Burma's obligations under the universal declaration of human rights; and, thirdly, to enter into meaningful dialogue with Burma's democratic opposition without delay. That is hardly speaking from the sidelines. We are carrying out our policy in support of democratic reform and human rights in Burma, and we have made it clear to SLORC that the resumption of normal relations- is conditional on progress in those key areas. That is the purpose of our critical dialogue.
As to the way in which we can help those who have been harmed by the regime in Burma, we will continue to work and to co-operate at every level in order to find the best and most effective way of helping them.

Mr. Fatchett: If the Minister is so concerned about human rights in Burma, and if the Government's actions are consistent with his words, will he give a commitment to the House that the trade delegation to Burma sponsored by the Government and scheduled for 24 June will be cancelled and that the Government will give no further legitimacy to that foul regime in Burma through their

actions or finances? Will he also give a commitment that the British Government will make it clear to the regime in Burma that, if there is any further repression of democratic forces, or if Aung San Suu Kyi is arrested, the British Government will take tough retaliatory action against Burma and join the United States and others in the world community in making it clear that democratic rights in Burma are important to us and to the people of that country?

Mr. Hanley: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that, on 19 July last year, there was an Adjournment debate on the subject, when I set out the Government's policy. I did so again on 7 February and I also referred to our policy in Parliament on 6 March. It is true that we sponsored a mission to Burma in January and February this year, but it is surprising that Mr. Pilger's recent television programme omitted to mention the fact that we have pulled the plug on our support for the trade mission to which the hon. Gentleman referred—for the reasons that he has given. It is strange that programmes criticising the Government fail to mention the facts that they find inconvenient—one must never let the truth interfere with a good story.

Former Yugoslavia

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what consultations are taking place with other Foreign Ministers over the future position of the implementation force in the former Yugoslavia. [30861]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We remain in constant contact with other Governments on this and other Bosnia-related subjects.

Mr. Winnick: The implementation force is clearly performing a very important task in the former Yugoslavia. As it is now quite clear that virtually every male who was captured after the fall of Srebrenica was put to death, the need to ensure that the most notorious war criminals are apprehended and brought to justice before the war crimes tribunal is all the greater. Should not the President of Serbia be told in clear terms that he has a duty to the international community to hand over to IFOR the two leading criminals among the Bosnian Serbs?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I share the hon. Gentleman's distaste for Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic, and I agree that it is important that they be brought to justice before the international war crimes tribunal, but it is not in IFOR's mandate to make such arrests or to seek Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic. Its job is to ensure that the Dayton peace agreement is taken forward. The hon. Gentleman must not underestimate the difficulty of apprehending Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic, and any military operation that was mounted to do so would undoubtedly involve substantial loss of international life.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we should put all possible pressure on the President of Serbia, Mr. Milosevic, to intervene to try to get to Messrs. Karadzic and Mladic. I am afraid that the President of Serbia does not have total control over the Bosnian Serbs—[Laughter.] It is all very well to laugh, but that is


a fact of life. It is regrettable, but true. We shall continue to put pressure on Mr. Milosevic until we attain the outcome that we desire.

Mr. Colvin: Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if the 20 December deadline for withdrawal of the implementation force is to be met, the elections that are currently scheduled for 14 September must be free and fair? Does he think that they will be, when 80 per cent. of the population of Bosnia are living elsewhere thanks to ethnic cleansing or the implementation of the Dayton agreement? Does he think that they will be, when 1 million Bosnians now live overseas and the register for the elections and the census on which it is based are dated 1991? Does my hon. Friend think that, in those circumstances, the elections will be free and fair? Will he, for an alternative, look at the experience of the Republic of South Africa? Many of its citizens were living where they should not have been at the time of the elections, and use of a sophisticated administrative device ensured that a large percentage of the population voted. Those elections were seen by the free world as fair and free.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I agree that the elections must be free and fair, but it would be unrealistic for any of us to expect them to be perfect. It is the task of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and others involved in trying to organise the elections to ensure that they reach a satisfactory electoral conclusion.
IFOR will be kept at full strength until after the elections and will be fully operational until 20 December. It is premature for us to plan further at present, but emphasis is placed on the fact that free and fair elections should be held, and all the international community's efforts are currently directed to that end.

Florence Summit

Mr. Alan W. Williams: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the agenda of the summit to be held in Florence on 21 and 22 June. [30862]

Mr. Rifkind: The agenda for the Florence European Council is not yet decided, but as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his statement to the House on 21 May, if we have not reached agreement on a framework for lifting the ban on beef, that subject is bound to dominate the agenda.

Mr. Williams: I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will accept that many hon. Members, including many Conservative Members, are concerned about the deep damage that is being caused to our relations with our European partners by the policy of non-co-operation. Will he make every effort to ensure that a compromise is reached before the Florence summit so that the agenda can be followed and we abandon this unwise policy?

Mr. Rifkind: We are all anxious to find an acceptable solution, but it must be on the basis outlined by the Prime Minister: agreement on a framework strategy for the phased lifting of the ban.

EU Intergovernmental Conference

Mr. Hall: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will outline the Government's objectives for the European Union intergovernmental conference. [30863]

Mr. Rifkind: Our objectives were set out in the recent White Paper "A Partnership of Nations".

Mr. Hall: Has the Foreign Secretary taken time to read the pamphlet produced by the Confederation of British Industry entitled "Building a Better Europe" which was published last week? It called for a pragmatic and case-by-case assessment of the case for extending qualified majority voting at the intergovernmental conference. Does not the sensible approach taken by the business community expose the Government's short-sighted and dogmatic approach in refusing to consider a further extension of qualified majority voting?

Mr. Rifkind: Our view of qualified majority voting is influenced by the fact that it already exists in relation to a large area of policy, including the single market and the common agricultural policy. We have yet to hear a convincing case—I do not believe that there is one—for further extension of QMV.

Mr. Field: I understand from my Member of the European Parliament that the maritime regions are to be considered by the intergovernmental conference, which will be of considerable interest to areas such as the Scottish islands, the Isle of Wight and the Azores. When will my right hon. and learned Friend be able to make an announcement about the peripheral regions' place in the timetable for the intergovernmental conference?

Mr. Rifkind: I am not clear about the background to my hon. Friend's question. The purpose of the intergovernmental conference is to consider the possibility of treaty amendments. I have not yet heard of any proposals that would be specifically relevant to maritime areas. Of course, if others make such proposals, we shall consider them on their merits.

UNESCO

Mr. MacShane: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans the Government have to rejoin UNESCO. [30864]

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: We have no immediate plans to rejoin UNESCO. This issue is being kept under review in the light of progress with reform in the organisation and other financial priorities.

Mr. MacShane: Everybody will agree that, in the 1980s, UNESCO was a ratbag, financially corrupt organisation run by an authoritarian megalomaniac—a bit like the Conservative party. Now it is run by a lean, mean executive called Major—Señor Major—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that he has to put a question and I have not yet heard a question from him.

Mr. MacShane: May I ask the Minister, given that UNESCO today is run by a lean, mean executive called


Major, who works with the private sector and does excellent work, whether Britain will abandon its petty, petulant refusal to play a part and rejoin UNESCO now?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I shall resist being tempted down that unfortunate path. We keep our rejoining UNESCO under constant review, but at the moment we are not satisfied that the management and administration of that organisation is good value for money for those who fund it. Nor are we satisfied that our membership would be good value for money, given that it would cost £11 million out of a limited budget, which is already fully pressed.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Is my hon. Friend aware that, when we were a member of UNESCO, we gained more money each year than we paid in? The sum that he mentioned should be seen in that context. Is he also aware that it is hard to find an educational or cultural institution in this country that does not think it is a gross mistake not to be a member of UNESCO? Will my hon. Friend please ensure that he does nothing to erect further fences that would prevent our speedy return?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: If my hon. Friend can give me figures that will assure me that we would get more than £11 million back if we put it in, I shall review the position. I think that it is unlikely.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: If there was a logic to the original decision to withdraw from UNESCO, surely the decision not to rejoin smacks of pettiness. Does the Minister understand that there is wide respect now for UNESCO's work and the way in which it conducts its affairs? Will he also recognise the increasing concern among other United Nations agencies that British withdrawal from UNESCO may parallel withdrawal from other organisations in the future? Will the Minister take the opportunity now to ensure that the world understands that there will be no withdrawals from other agencies?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The world is probably more concerned about the fact that the United States does not back UNESCO than the fact that the United Kingdom does not. I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that we have no plans to withdraw from other organisations. However, we are keeping a close eye on, and conducting a review of, the efficiency and value of some operations

of the United Nations. I cannot, as yet, give the hon. Gentleman any details of the results that might arise from that examination.

Mr. Jessel: Is my hon. Friend aware that, at UNESCO's palatial headquarters in Paris, where 2,000 people work, most of the experienced middle management were sacked and replaced by a lot of left-wing trendies, and long-haired men and short-haired women who wore sandals in the office? [Interruption.] There were too many of them in the office and not enough out in the field. Is my hon. Friend also aware that in matters of cultural relations overseas, many of us would much rather support the Government's policy of continuing to fund the excellent work of the British Council and the BBC's overseas service?

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His description of those who work at UNESCO matches our view of the Opposition.

Lebanon

Mr. Jim Cunningham: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Israel regarding the ceasefire in the Lebanon. [30865]

Mr. Hanley: During the conflict in Lebanon, we repeatedly urged all sides to reach a ceasefire agreement. Since the 26 April agreement was reached, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I have been in touch, by letter and telephone, with the Israeli Government about Lebanon, and kept in regular touch, in person, with the Israeli ambassador to the Court of St. James.

Mr. Cunningham: Has the Minister had any clarification from the new Israeli Prime Minister who says that he wants peace and security? What is the Minister's interpretation of that statement?

Mr. Hanley: I cannot but believe that it is in the interests of the new Israeli Government and their Prime Minister to continue the peace process. Peace comes with prosperity and prosperity comes with peace. It must be in the interests of all people in the middle east to pursue the peace process. Last weekend, and during the week, I visited five countries—Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt and Morocco—and in each of them I found constructive views and people willing to give the new Prime Minister of Israel the chance to show that he is dedicated to peace. I believe that the Arab world will do so and that Mr. Netanyahu will rise to the occasion.

NHS Dentistry

The Minister for Health (Mr. Gerald Malone): With permission, I would like to make a statement on the future of dentistry in the national health service.
Last April, I announced on behalf of all United Kingdom Health Ministers a package of reforms to the general dental services remuneration system. I can now tell the House that a year of constructive and detailed discussion with the General Dental Services Committee has resulted in agreement on that package. Implementation will start in September. This will do much to end uncertainty and to provide an atmosphere of stability and security for the dental profession. It creates a firm foundation for future work.
I wish to set out both an immediate and a long-term agenda. I will deal with the immediate agenda first.
The package has a number of elements, one of which is children's dentistry. At present, the treatment of children is funded through a monthly capitation payment to dentists, supplemented by weighted entry payments where significant additional treatment is needed. The new system retains capitation payments, and replaces weighted entry with a new set of fees for individual items of treatment. This will help ensure that children receive appropriate preventive advice and dental treatment.
For both adult and child dentistry, we will harmonise the registration period at 15 months. This will provide a period of continuing dental care following each course of treatment, while streamlining administrative procedures and reducing bureaucracy for dentists.
To help ensure that the public secure the best value for money from resources, we will introduce more rigorous prior approval for some courses of treatment from 1 December. This will ensure that all clinically essential services are available and are secured in the most cost-effective way. A joint working party between Health Departments and the General Dental Services Committee will develop our proposals further.
It is important to construct a remuneration system which encourages improvements in oral health. Our aim is to target substantial existing resources more effectively for the benefit of patients. We shall be working with the profession to monitor the outcome of the changes to the proposed fee scale to ensure that we achieve our objective.
I deal now with the longer-term agenda. I can now tell the House that we intend to pilot and evaluate a system of local contracting for primary care dentists in several areas around the UK. The chairman of the General Dental Services Committee has stated that it will work with us constructively. I welcome that approach. The pilots will require primary legislation, and it is the Government's intention to seek an opportunity to introduce a Bill. I hope that it will prove possible to publish a draft Bill for consultation this autumn. We want to make progress, with the agreement and commitment of the profession.
Such a Bill would provide an opportunity to tackle another agenda which has been set by the dental profession itself and which I have discussed recently with the General Dental Council. The council is charged under the Dentists Act 1984 with setting and maintaining professional standards for the benefit of dentists and patients alike. Last year, the council issued a consultation

document setting out its proposals to amend the Act to do away with a number of constraints to the development of the profession. I am now happy to announce that the Government are prepared to take forward their proposals.
First, the Government propose to set up new classes of dental auxiliaries and expand the range of work that they can do. That would allow the GDC to approve pilot studies of mixed-skill working. The aim is to allow dentists to manage their practices more effectively, provide more professional opportunities for hygienists and other dental auxiliaries and increase the amount of care available for patients. It will be necessary to ensure that those changes produce enhanced NHS services, targeted to need. The proposals will enable clinical dental technicians to practise legally in future.
Secondly, in cases of disciplinary proceedings, the Government propose to introduce conditional registration in addition to the sanctions currently in place. Another important component of that proposal would be the creation of a statutory career redevelopment scheme for dentists who do not demonstrate a sufficient level of competence. We also intend significantly to increase the lay representation on their council.
Thirdly, the Government propose to establish a complaints system for private patients, something that was urged upon me recently in a debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Clifton-Brown). That would enhance the GDC's powers to deal with complaints against dentists providing treatment outside the NHS.
Those proposals broadly mirror developments for the medical profession which were put to the House earlier this year and approved.
I recognise that, within a growing general dental service, there are some localised problems of accessibility. Health authorities are already able to apply to the Secretary of State to seek to appoint a salaried dentist and use the community dental services in areas where availability problems arise. In addition, we have been consulting within the NHS and the profession on an access fund for this year.
I am pleased to announce to the House that we shall shortly be seeking bids from health authorities in England for individual grants, in the region of £40,000, to enable them to fund local solutions to local problems of availability. An access scheme has already been successfully launched in Wales. We shall monitor the outcome carefully.
Another issue which has greatly concerned the profession is that dentists have been remunerated through a system with a balancing mechanism, whereby overpayments in one year were recovered in subsequent years. However, over a number of years, up to 1993–94, an overpayment amounting to some £16,500 per dentist arose. I have had many representations on the issue. I have listened to the views of my right hon. and hon. Friends, and also to Opposition Members, who have urged me to mitigate the burden of those overpayments.
In view of the agreement reached with the profession, I have decided not to pursue that course of action. Instead, I have decided to announce today a total waiver of the overpayments. As a consequence, I understand that the chairman and executive of the General Dental Services Committee will recommend that the dispute started in 1992 be called off.
NHS dentistry is a success story. Since 1992, the number of dentists on English health authorities' lists has increased by around 500, to nearly 16,000. The number of adult treatments has gone up by 50 per cent. since 1979. Expenditure on the general dental services is up by 57 per cent. over the same period. We now have an agreed way forward. In my statement, I have set out an exciting and challenging new agenda for the profession and for the NHS. I intend to pursue it with vigour, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Henry McLeish: Does the Minister not accept that, against the background of the crisis now gripping NHS dentistry, his statement will be seen as muddled and misguided, and will be a bitter disappointment to the public, professionals and Parliament? Will he acknowledge that this package is further evidence, if any were needed, that the Government are determined to drive dentistry out of the NHS by promoting further privatisation of adult treatment and retaining a residual welfare service for children and people on benefit?
Is the Minister oblivious to the main problem: to ensure that adults get routine NHS general dental services throughout the country? On that issue, does he accept that, in London and the south-west, one in six of the population has difficulty finding an NHS dentist? Does he further accept that there has been a significant fall in the registration of young adults over the age of 18? Why does nothing in his statement address those issues?
No one will disagree with more assistance being given to children, nor with the proposals to maintain professional standards. The belated attempt to solve the payments problem is welcomed by most people, and the Government have belatedly accepted that there are localised difficulties in terms of access, but will the Minister explain the knee-jerk reaction to the crisis facing children in NHS dentistry?
Will the Minister confirm that the proposed amount to be spent is £10 million, and that it will in effect be transferred from adult dentistry? Will he also explain why the item-of-service payments, which have been reintroduced, provide dentists with more money for taking teeth out than for filling them, which will undermine preventive health care?
Does the Minister accept that the reduction in the registration period from 24 to 15 months—or, to use his words, to "harmonise" the phase of registration—could mean that millions of adults will be removed from NHS dentists' registers? I urge the Minister to tell the House whether 2 million, 3 million or 4 million will be removed at a stroke. Can he explain whether the new rigorous prior approval for expensive treatments—crowns and bridges— is designed to improve dental care or merely to provide the cash for transferring to children's treatment?
The Minister's statement does not in any way address the key issue of health inequalities in dental services throughout the country. We need a package to ensure the right of all sections of the community in all parts of the country to comprehensive NHS dental care. The Government have squandered yet another opportunity. We

need to keep dentistry within the NHS. The Government have shown by their actions today that they do not share that aspiration.

Mr. Malone: We have just heard the usual drivel from the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish), whose view of NHS dentistry is totally unsupported by the evidence. The truth is that NHS dentistry is succeeding. It is receiving record funding from the Government. The number of people who are maintained on registers is broadly the same as it was in the past, in spite of the perverted statistics put out by the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—who, rather interestingly, counts those who come off the register automatically and then refuses to look at the figures for those who go on the register, which gives an entirely different picture.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central raised yet again the bogus issue of privatisation. Health service dentistry is receiving additional investment.

Mr. McLeish: What about costs? What about registrations?

Mr. Malone: I shall come to each of those points. The hon. Gentleman need not butt in from a sedentary position.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about the undermining of preventive care. Nothing will do that. He made some spurious suggestion that funding for children's treatment will come from adult care. I explained to the House in my statement that the weighted payments that are presently given will fund the fees for patient care for children, and that there will be a ceiling within which the treatment will take place. That has always been the case.
I now come to the hon. Gentleman's point about the 15-month period. The reason why there is a continuous care period of 15 months is that some 4.5 million people were rolling off the register each year, which suggests that they were not receiving treatment. The 15-month period will encourage dentists to provide a course of treatment for patients who need it, and they will then remain on the register. It is in the interest of dentists that they do so.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of prior approval. It will improve dental care, because it will ensure that what is clinically necessary and appropriate for patients will be delivered. What is important is that the protocols will be decided with the dental profession and will be developed during the coming months. Dentists very much welcome that.
Yes, things are different under this Government compared with the previous Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman may be interested in the notice from the British Dental Association, which is headed "Notice to Patients". It says:
For the time being some patients may be unable to obtain dental treatment under the National Health Service … The British Dental Association regrets that this situation has arisen and hopes that a viable and progressive NHS Dental Service can be restored in the very near future.
It was, in 1979. It has been developed since, and that is an achievement of this Government.

Sir Peter Emery: Although I thank my hon. Friend for that statement, which certainly goes a long way


to meeting many of the difficulties in the profession, I believe that it has not immediately met one great worry. Being parochial, I think of Sidmouth, Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth, where people are having to travel perhaps 20 miles to register with a dentist.
Will my hon. Friend consider providing capital to attract dentists into setting up a house and clinic, so that they can take on the great registration that exists not just in my area, but in many areas of the south-west? That would much more quickly get over the immediate problem, which I am sure my hon. Friend wishes to do.

Mr. Malone: Yes, indeed. The fund I have announced to the House this afternoon is designed precisely to meet such a need, where it is clearly demonstrated that there is a requirement for NHS dentistry that cannot be met. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have written to me about access, and I have listened to them most carefully.
My right hon. Friend will be well aware of the legislative framework within which we normally provide NHS dentistry if no dentist wishes to provide NHS care. There are two means of doing so: either through the community dental service or through the appointment of a salaried dentist. That system has proved to be too inflexible, and that is why I have announced in principle to the House today a scheme that will meet local flexibilities and needs—which is why it is not prescriptive. It will be up to local health authorities to devise schemes that match the local situation.
The representations have been listened to and responded to. I very much hope that my right hon. Friend will now take up the matter directly with his local health authority, so that it may bid for the fund that has been put in place.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I and my colleagues give a cautious welcome to the Minister's statement, as far as it goes. Does he agree that, unless there is both the commitment and the finance in the next few months, we shall not be able to rescue NHS dentistry from the jaws of disappearance?
Specifically, is it Government policy to reinstate to the NHS all the work that has been lost over the past four years? Is it Government policy that the 1.8 million net patients who have been lost to the NHS will go back to being inscribed on NHS rolls? Is it Government policy that, not just in the south-west but all over the country, there will be access for every citizen, adult and child, to a local NHS dentist?
If so, will the Minister answer the last crucial question? Does the new settlement mean that there is more money for dental remuneration, and does it mean that, once again, there will be free dental checks on the NHS for all adults and all children all over the country, as needed?

Mr. Malone: I will answer the point about additional resources first, because that is at the core of the matter. Since 1979, this Government have provided, on an on-going basis, dramatic additional resources for NHS care. Total real expenditure is £1.4 billion up—60 per cent.—on the 1978–79 figures. It is all very well for the Labour party to talk about fiddling figures; it is nothing of the sort. These are the facts, and to try to suggest by simple assertion that they are not is an absurdity into

which Opposition Front-Bench Members fall far too often. Net spending is up by 37 per cent. on 1978–79 figures.
The hon. Gentleman lives in a fantasy land. He totally fails to understand the system if he thinks that people who may have required NHS dentistry in the past and now need it will receive it in terms. I do not know what system of compulsory treatment the Liberal party proposes to employ to seek them out. Time and again, the hon. Gentleman has fiddled the figures relating to NHS dentistry. What is more, when he is discovered fiddling the figures, he changes the ground rules.
I shall tell the House exactly what the hon. Gentleman has done. He has claimed that one patient is deregistered every two minutes, but depending on the basis of calculating the two minutes—I took it to be the normal division of time by two minute segments—some 45 are registered at the same time.
Having been found out on that, and the facts not suiting him, the hon. Gentleman then moved on to something that proved more esoteric. More recently, he claimed that one patient has disappeared every eight working day seconds. So we got out the calculator. We assumed working days to be Monday to Friday, and, giving the hon. Gentleman the benefit of the doubt, we worked out relatively shortly that more than four are registered at the same time. So once again the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong.

Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the representatives of the dental profession on finally settling their long-standing pay dispute and on the major strides forward that have obviously been made during the negotiations. As Chairman of the Health Select Committee, I welcome the introduction of a new system of rewarding activity, with particular reference to children's oral health. However, as the Minister will know, the continuing trend of improvement in children's oral health has not been maintained in recent years. Will he confirm that children's oral health will now receive the focus it deserves, and will be put at the top of the priority list?

Mr. Malone: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I thank her for drawing attention to the co-operation of the profession in setting the agenda in lengthy discussions that she acknowledges are now productive.
My hon. Friend referred to children's oral health. It was precisely because it had become evident that the rate of improvement in children's oral health was not being maintained that we decided to look into the issue. My hon. Friend is quite right. We are seeking to ensure that activity relates to oral health and not just to the weighted payments that were previously in place, which meant that a dentist got more cash for putting on to his or her list a child with a bad oral health problem.
However, that did not generate activity. The purpose of the new scheme is to generate such activity, which should improve oral health dramatically. I can confirm that we shall continue to monitor the scheme as it unfolds, and ensure that it promotes the increased activity and improvement in oral health that we believe it promises. If, however, it does not fulfil that promise, I have no hesitation in saying that I shall be prepared to approach the issue again.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does the Minister accept that, for the greater part of the past 17 years, the


dentistry element of the national health service has fallen apart? He comes here today attempting to introduce pilot schemes in local areas prior to a general election to give the impression that they will get rid of all the problems that have arisen in those 17 years, together with some auxiliaries. Are we going back to the 1930s, when my father was down the pit, and, if somebody wanted a tooth out and they had no money, there was no national health service and people would say, "Go to Tony Skinner, he has a good pair of pliers"? What a fine state of affairs we have reached.

Mr. Malone: I always knew that the hon. Gentleman's family was multi-skilled, but I did not know that it went that far. He harked back to the 1930s. I hope that he will not hark back to the 1950s when, under a Labour Government, a compulsory decrease in dental fees of 20 per cent. was imposed in one year, followed by another of 10 per cent., and there was talk of using military dentists to break a strike. That was acceded to by the saint of the health service, Nye Bevan, so we do not want to get back to the agenda set by the Labour party.
Our agenda is one of continued investment in the health service. The facts absolutely belie the hon. Gentleman's accusation that the service is falling apart. It is receiving increasing investment, and more dentists than ever before are providing NHS treatment. The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. If I am to attempt to call all the hon. Members who are rising, I must now have short, brisk questions, and short, brisk answers from the Minister.

Sir Alan Haselhurst: Is it not well nigh impossible to interpret any part of my hon. Friend's statement as making access to NHS dentistry more difficult? On the contrary, does it not give a clear signal to health authorities, such as North Essex health authority, that there is now an additional means of trying to supply areas such as Saffron Walden, where there are currently no NHS dentists?

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is quite right. I shall expect him to speak to his local health authority to see whether a scheme can be devised.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Minister will know that I have been corresponding regularly with his Department about what has been described to me as a crisis in dentistry in west Cumbria. We have been viewing the scheme in Wales quite enviously. May I ask the Minister in advance to look favourably on any bid that Cumbria might wish to make?

Mr. Malone: I will certainly take the hon. Gentleman's representations into account if such a bid is made.

Mr. James Couchman: My hon. Friend's statement is very welcome, as is the fact that a long-running dispute now appears to be over.
During my hon. Friend's discussions with them, have dentists said whether more of their number will be prepared to take on new NHS patients? May I also ask him whether he believes that this will solve the problem of the scarcity of orthodontic treatment?

Mr. Malone: Given the hypothesis that dentists were saying that they would not take on extra NHS work—or would withdraw from such work—because a dispute was in progress, I hope that a corollary of the end of that dispute will be many more dentists deciding to resume NHS care. I hope that the end of the dispute and, in particular, getting rid of the vexed issue of overpayments—which I know encouraged a number of dentists to give up NHS work—will enable us to put the matter behind us. The legislation to which I have referred is designed precisely to improve the teams, including orthodontists, who will provide care in the dentist's surgery.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that the best way in which to improve children's dental health is to put fluoride in the water? That being the case, what will he do about it?

Mr. Malone: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is exactly the Government's policy. Our policy is that, where it is agreed locally that fluoride should be introduced into the water supply, it should be introduced. The hon. Gentleman comes from an area where that is a contentious issue. I will certainly back schemes that are initiated locally, with local support, and the Government stand ready to back them all with capital investment.

Mr. Barry Field: As my hon. Friend will know, the writing off of overpayments will bring a big cheesy grin to the faces of members of the dental profession. Given the conversations that I have had with him, does he realise just how keen I am on pilot studies involving the Isle of Wight? Will he confirm that he will consider my bid for the island to have just one of the schemes that he has announced?

Mr. Malone: I have been delighted to note the bids from hon. Members on both sides of the House to participate in the next generation of NHS dentistry. My hon. Friend's bid has certainly been noted.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Why, oh why, has it taken four years for the Government to get themselves out of the hole they dug for themselves back in 1992? Why has NHS dentistry disappeared from my constituency for the past three years, despite the Welsh Office initiative? In the past two years, only one dentist in the constituency has been taking on new NHS patients, and we still do not have one additional dentist, in spite of the initiative taken two years ago, and the additional money that was supposed to come.
On Monday morning, I saw a constituent who had a serious toothache last Wednesday, but could get no treatment either in hospital or from a dentist. He was offered antibiotics, or the alternative of having a tooth removed. The position is a shambles. It is high time we saw real action, rather than the window dressing that has gone on in Wales for the past two years.

Mr. Malone: The hon. Gentleman entirely ignores the fact that we have made solid progress with the profession


in that time in resolving a huge range of outstanding issues that will direct dental health care far more appropriately to patients. I should have thought that he would welcome that. He cannot say that he has experienced problems in his constituency in the past, and then belittle a statement today that addresses those problems and takes forward the agenda of NHS dentistry as a whole.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My hon. Friend will recall that I am the adviser to the Clinical Dental Technicians Association. How will he take forward his remarks about legalising the practice of denturism? Will the access funds that he referred to a few moments ago be directed towards the problems at Newton Abbot about which I have spoken to him recently?

Mr. Malone: I forgot that my hon. Friend gave advice—probably to the relatives of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) who get their pliers out occasionally.

Mr. Skinner: My father would have done it for nothing.

Mr. Malone: Well, dentists dictate their own terms of service when providing private care.
My hon. Friend has made representations to me on behalf of his constituents. I note his suggestion today, and assume that he will take it up with his local health authority.

Ms Jean Corston: Does the Minister accept that his statement that NHS dentistry is a success story is simply not true in my constituency, where there are only two dentists providing NHS dentistry? That is two dentists for nearly 80,000 people. Dentists cannot survive professionally unless they encourage their patients to apply for services such as Denplan, for which some people, particularly pensioners, cannot afford the premiums. Is not a consequence of that a decline in the nation's health, and the privatisation of dentistry?

Mr. Malone: I do not accept that the nation's oral health is declining. If one were to believe Opposition Members, one would wonder what those dentists who provide NHS dentistry were up to, and where they were located. According to Opposition Members, there are no NHS dentists in their constituencies. There are, however, 15,500 dentists providing NHS care, and only 500 providing a totally private practice. The hon. Lady is entirely wrong to characterise a successful national service in the way she does.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend is, I suspect, as fed up of reading my letters on Weymouth and Portland as I am of writing them. May I congratulate him on producing the flexibility that Dorset health commission has asked for in terms of solving the problems in those areas? Will he ensure that we are one of the areas chosen for the pilot scheme? Will he give a commitment to ensure that, by the time of the general election, everyone who wants an NHS dentist will have one?

Mr. Malone: My hon. Friend is entirely wrong—I enjoy reading his correspondence, and I hope that he

thinks that I reply to it with some care. I have said to colleagues who want their constituencies to participate in the scheme that, if they fall within the rules, I expect the local health authority to put forward a proposal for consideration.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: How many areas in this country have localised problems of access? Barnoldswick, in my constituency, is a town of 10,000 people with only one NHS dentist. There is a waiting list as long as your arm, and it is impossible to get treatment in the area. Was not the Minister's statement totally fraudulent?

Mr. Malone: No.

Mr. Mark Robinson: Following his welcome statement, will my hon. Friend consider launching a campaign to persuade those dentists who have shut their doors to new registrations— temporarily, I hope—to reopen them?

Mr. Malone: I very much hope that the statement will encourage those dentists who, in the light of the dispute, decided not to provide NHS dentistry to take a fresh look at the situation and review their decision. Having put the dispute behind us, I hope that we will enter a more positive phase and increase the expanding number of dentists providing NHS care.

Mr. Hugh Bayley: Does the Minister recall the report of the Health Select Committee on NHS dentistry that concluded that improvements in oral health achieved by a positive health promotion strategy would enable the Government to reintroduce at no additional cost free dental checks and a free core service of routine treatment? Why was that idea not pursued with the BDA?
As someone who has been told by his NHS dentist to go private or to go away—[Interruption.] I can tell Conservative Members that I left that practice—may I ask the Government to give a guarantee to all taxpayers, who have paid for an NHS dental service, that they will get such a service?

Mr. Malone: I would not fancy looking into the hon. Gentleman's mouth on a regular basis, so perhaps that is understandable. His point is exactly the same as that made by his hon. Friends. It is entirely wrong. He is yet another who claims that the NHS dental service has disappeared. It palpably has not.

Mr. David Congdon: Does my hon. Friend agree that the facts that over the past four years, the number of patients registered—both adults and children—has increased, that the number of treatments has increased and that the state of the nation's teeth has improved show that the NHS dental service is neither in crisis nor a shambles? What steps in his proposals will give an incentive to dentists to carry out preventive treatment? On children's health, will he ensure that proper quality controls are in place for the reintroduction of an item-for-fee service?

Mr. Malone: Yes, I can give the latter undertaking. Dentists are professionals, who have to obey the clinical guidelines set by the profession. I expect them to


undertake preventive care. The corollary suggested by some Labour Members is that they behave badly and give unnecessary clinical treatment. I do not think that that is right. The system of improved payments for children's oral health care will strongly contribute to a general improvement in oral health care for children across the nation.

Mr. Nick Ainger: The Minister and several hon. Members have referred to the Welsh scheme. I endorse the comments of those who have said that it has not been a success. As an example, a dentist was relocated to my constituency in December, but has now sent a letter to all her adult patients deregistering them. After sixth months, she faces bankruptcy because of her serious problems.
I urge the Minister to recognise that there is a real problem, especially in rural areas, both in Wales and England. What he has told us today does not go far enough. Can he give any idea how many dentists who have in the past four years deregistered adult and children patients will now come back into the NHS?

Mr. Malone: I cannot predict the precise number. We will exhort those who feel that the environment is better after the statement to resume NHS care. We will see what the numbers will be. It is important that the access schemes are successful in the long term. That will be one of the criteria that we will consider carefully when schemes are put forward by local health authorities.
Some of the relocation schemes we have tried in England did not work in the long term. We are well informed by the fact that they did not work. We will be careful, in spending the taxpayers' money on improving access to dental health care, that we get schemes that will endure and provide lasting benefits for NHS patients.

Points of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I draw your attention to page 129 of "Erskine May", which states:
Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt improperly to influence Members in the discharge of their duties but having a tendency to impair their independence in the future performance of their duty may be treated as a contempt.
I raise that because a leading newspaper, The Times, today says that Tory Members who voted for the ten-minute Bill yesterday—

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. He has used the word "contempt". If it is contempt, it may well be a breach of privilege, and I cannot allow him to proceed in that manner. I ask him to write fully to me, so that I can consider the matter carefully.

Mr. Winnick: I take that point, Madam Speaker, but it was not contempt. I quoted from "Erskine May", but I am seeking your guidance.

Madam Speaker: I understood that the hon. Gentleman said that it was a "contempt", and did not just quote the word. I must be clear about it: the hon. Gentleman is not alleging contempt?

Mr. Winnick: No, Madam Speaker, I am seeking your guidance on a matter arising from what I quoted.
Was it right and proper for hon. Members to vote yesterday for the ten-minute Bill on the basis that it would reduce or eliminate the chances of a candidate being put up against them by the Referendum party? Bearing in mind the fact that one Conservative Member has already described the threat as "blatant blackmail", it seems to me, in seeking your guidance, that we should know precisely where we stand. Are not threats from outside sources that say, in effect, "Vote one way and we won't put up a candidate against you," influencing Members of Parliament unduly? Is not such conduct quite inappropriate?

Madam Speaker: Had the hon. Gentleman given me notice of his point of order, I might have been able to give him an immediate response. If he will let me consider the matter carefully, along with the quotation from "Erskine May" that he cited, I shall attempt to make some response.

Mr. Chris Mullin: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance on a matter of which I have given you notice. It concerns a letter that I received from Sir James Goldsmith dated 15 February. I imagine that it was sent to quite a number of hon. Members—I see no reason why I should have been singled out. The letter says:
At the next general election, the Referendum Party plans to field a candidate in each Westminster parliamentary constituency in which the leading candidates are not committed to a fair referendum. As you will understand, it would be extremely helpful if you were to let us have a copy of any speeches or press releases that you have made or plan to make concerning a referendum on Europe.
That, in the light of yesterday's events, is a thinly veiled threat.
I seek your guidance, Madam Speaker, on the propriety of that letter in the light of yesterday's events. As I said, the letter was dated 15 February. I did not raise it with you at the time because its significance began to fall into place only after the events of the past few days.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been kind enough this afternoon to let me have a copy of that letter. It does not seem to raise any questions of privilege, largely because, of course, it contains no threat to sitting Members carrying out their parliamentary duties. The matter seems to be about politics and the next election, not subjects on which legitimate points of order may arise. I do not know whether I received the letter, but, had I done so, it would have gone straight into the wastepaper basket.

Mr. Barry Field: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether you were able to observe during Question Time that, exclusively in the Chamber, I was showered by national lottery tickets from the Public Gallery. From where I was sitting, I was unable to ascertain where they came from. From your vantage point, could you tell whether they came from that long lottery finger in the advertisement that points down to people and says, "It could be you"?
I have been assiduous in collecting the tickets. After a very slow start, the Isle of Wight has done rather well out of the national lottery. Should I win this weekend as a result of collecting those tickets, would I have to declare it in the Register of Members' Interests?

Madam Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is successful this weekend, I will go 50:50 with him. If they were lottery tickets—I do not know what they were—I did not see any of them. It seemed to be a very mild demonstration, which, frankly, went off like a damp squib.

BILLS PRESENTED

PENSIONER TRUSTEES

Mr. Jim Cunningham, supported by Mr. Jon Trickett, Mr. Brian Jenkins, Mr. Bill Olner, Mr. Ian Pearson, Mr. John Hutton, Ms Janet Anderson, Mr. Michael Connarty and Ms Liz Lynne, presented a Bill to give pensioner members of occupational pension schemes the statutory right to be member-nominated trustees of such schemes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 149.]

Paedophiles (Registration and Miscellaneous Provisions)

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to control and monitor convicted paedophiles in order to provide greater protection for children.
I do not think that anything in the whole pantheon of crime causes more abhorrence than crimes against children, especially when they are of a sexual nature. Such crimes are probably the basest known to man. Recently, Daniel Handley was killed by two paedophiles who had a long string of previous convictions. Such appalling cases go all the way back to Myra Hindley and Ian Brady.
People are generally appalled not only at the nature of the crime but at the chilling organisation of many paedophile rings—there are estimated to be 20 in the country—and the way in which they operate their terrible activities.
It is difficult to ascertain exactly the extent of the problem. It is estimated that about 5,000 serious sexual offences come before the courts every year. As I found when I sought information from the West Mercia force in my constituency, however, it is difficult to find out how many of those offences relate to children. Equally, it is difficult to obtain evidence of child abuse or sexual abuse of children. It is estimated, however, that 95 per cent. of child abuse cases never come to court. It is interesting to note that amendments to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill might make the presentation of evidence in child abuse cases much easier.
We know from Scotland Yard's national criminal intelligence service that it has 4,500 paedophiles on its books. We also know that there is a significant element of repeat offending by paedophiles. A recent survey of 232 abusers found that they had been responsible for no fewer than 55,000 offences, against about 16,400 children. What we can appreciate is that, despite the difficulty in obtaining evidence of those appalling crimes, the problem is sadly widespread, and is not diminishing. Above all, we know that it wrecks—and I mean wrecks—young lives.
My Bill comes at an opportune time, because, on 27 March, the hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson) introduced a Bill to register paedophile offenders. The hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) has also introduced a measure to cover supervision orders for such offenders. In addition, the Home Secretary is due to publish a consultation paper next week that will deal with many of the relevant issues. I also understand that an announcement is imminent about the problem of child abuse in certain parts of the country.
My Bill has three specific measures, which I hope will inform and influence that debate, and ensure that the community receives adequate notification of the activities of child abusers and child sex offenders. Most important, it seeks to provide proper compulsory treatment for them.
My Bill would establish a register of listed sexual offenders in line with the offences listed in the Sexual Offences Against Children (Register of Offenders) Bill to which I have already referred. Access to that register would be confined either to those groups that look after children and are registered to do so, or to people whom the chief police officer of an area believes have a legitimate interest.
My Bill goes even wider than that, because I agree with the Police Superintendents Association, which believes that it should be mandatory for all offenders and ex-offenders to inform the local police of any change of address. After all, there is no point in having a list of offenders if one does not know where they are. I believe that that register should carry information apart from pure convictions, including cautions and recent information about potential or actual paedophiles.
I understand that such a register may raise certain problems in terms of civil liberties. We must weigh the importance of protecting the interests of the innocent against the importance of protecting innocent children and the public. I also emphasise that 95 per cent. of child abuse cases never come before a court. I should have thought that, as long as non-conviction information was removed from the register within five years, and that information was given out only at the discretion of the registrar or a senior police officer, those civil liberties objections would be overcome.
The second measure—I believe that it is even more important—deals with the subsequent treatment of sex offenders, particularly child sex offenders, during their sentences and after they have been released. I recognise that many sex offender treatment programmes have, through Home Office evaluation, proved effective. The programme at Peterhead in Scotland was found to have a discernible impact on violent and passive offenders. The programme at Whatton, although more controversial, found that half the abusers benefited from the regime, and that long-term paedophiles may require long-term treatment. I recognise that the number of treatment programmes has increased significantly—up to 109— throughout the country over the past five years.
I am concerned that the programmes are imposed by the court only to the end of an offender's sentence. In addition, the programmes are not offered to offenders who are serving sentences of less than two years, because, with 50 per cent. remission, it is believed that 12 months is not long enough for the programme to be effective. Given that many of the activities of paedophiles are degenerative, it is important that people who serve shorter sentences are properly treated, or at least given the opportunity to be treated.
I am concerned that only 10 per cent. of offenders get a court order for treatment within their sentence. There is apparently only one national health service out-patient clinic in the United Kingdom that treats these people outside penal establishments. It should be mandatory for anyone convicted of a sexual offence against children to have a course of treatment after they have finished their sentence. Obviously, that course of treatment would be laid down by the court, depending on the post-sentence reports and on the reports from the penal establishment concerned.
I appreciate that, as a result of the European convention on human rights, such treatment has to be voluntary—I support that. However, at the same time, there is a strong case for the courts to have the discretion to reimpose a sentence on people if they will not voluntarily agree to a course of treatment—many of them will agree; half the paedophiles say that they need treatment. These people may be a danger to children and to the public.
Finally, I am concerned that treatment programmes throughout the country are now the responsibility of individual probation services. In other words, there is no point putting in place a mandatory requirement that everyone shall have treatment if there are different kinds of treatment throughout the country. It is vital that there is a standard, a code, throughout the country as to the sort of treatment that ought to be given, albeit on a voluntary basis.
As these matters are of sufficient importance, the Home Secretary should be required to report on them to Parliament every two years. He should report on the effectiveness of legislation against child abuse. In this way, the kind of injustice, inhumanity—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): Order. The hon. Gentleman's time has expired.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. A. Coombs, Mr. Peter Hardy, Dr. Robert Spink, Mr. Nigel Spearing, Mr. Rupert Allason, Mr. Graham Riddick, Mr. David Jamieson, Mr. Jacques Arnold, Mr. David Evans and Mrs. Teresa Gorman.

PAEDOPHILES (REGISTRATION AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS)

Mr. Anthony Coombs accordingly presented a Bill to control and monitor convicted paedophiles in order to provide greater protection for children: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 12 July and to be printed. [Bill 150.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Procedure and Investigations Bill [Lords]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

New clause 1

WITNESS SUMMONS: SECURING ATTENDANCE OF WITNESS

'.—(1) In section 4(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (judge of High Court may issue warrant to arrest witness in respect of whom witness summons is in force) for the words "High Court" there shall be substituted "Crown Court".

(2) This section shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 2

WAR CRIMES: ABOLITION OF TRANSFER PROCEDURE

'.—(1) In the War Crimes Act 1991—

(a) in section 1(4) (which introduces the Schedule providing a procedure for use instead of committal proceedings for certain war crimes) the words "England, Wales or" shall be omitted, and
(b) Part I of the Schedule (procedure for use in England and Wales instead of committal proceedings) shall be omitted.


(2) In section 20(4) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 (power of magistrates' court to grant legal aid for Crown Court proceedings)—

(a) the word "or" shall be inserted at the end of paragraph (b), and
(b) paragraph (bb) (which relates to a notice of transfer under Part I of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991) shall be omitted.'—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 3

ABOLITION OF WITNESS ORDERS

'.—(1) Section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965 (examining justices to order witness to attend and give evidence before Crown Court) shall be omitted.

(2) In that Act the following words shall be omitted—

(a) in section 3(1) the words "witness order or";
(b) in section 4(1) the words "witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or";
(c) in the proviso to section 4(1) the words from "in the case" (where they first occur) to "witness summons";
(d) in section 4(2) the words "a witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".

(3) In section 145 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (rules) subsection (1)(e) (which relates to witness orders) shall be omitted.

(4) This section shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 4

USE OF WRITTEN STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS AT TRIAL

'Schedule (Statements and depositions) to this Act (which relates

to the use at the trial of written statements and depositions admitted in evidence in committal proceedings) shall have effect.'.— [Mr. Kirkhope.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 10

TIME LIMITS: TRANSITIONAL

'—(1) As regards a case in relation to which no regulations under section 12 have come into force for the purposes of section 3, section 3(8) shall have effect as if it read—

"(8) The prosecutor must act under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after—

(a) the accused pleads not guilty (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1(1)),
(b) the accused is committed for trial (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1 (2)(a)),
(c) the proceedings are transferred (where this Part applies by virtue of section l(2)(b) or (c)),
(d) the count is included in the indictment (where this Part applies by virtue of section 1 (2)(d)), or
(e) the bill of indictment is preferred (where this Part applies by virtue of section l(2)(e))."

(2) As regards a case in relation to which no regulations under section 12 have come into force for the purposes of section 7, section 7(7) shall have effect as if it read—

"(7) The prosecutor must act under this section as soon as is reasonably practicable after the accused gives a defence statement under section 5 or 6." '—[The Solicitor-General]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New clause 5

RESTRICTIONS ON USE BY ACCUSED OF SEXUAL OR VIOLENT PROSECUTION MATERIAL

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order make provision for the modification of any duty placed by this Act upon the prosecutor to disclose prosecution material to the accused when the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are fulfilled.

(2) The conditions are—

(a) the material is of a sexual or violent nature, or
(b) there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the accused or others will use the material for purposes other than for the preparation of the accused's defence.

(3) No modification made under subsection (1) above shall have the effect of preventing the accused from inspecting any material which he would but for the provisions of this section be able to inspect.

(4) A modification made under subsection (1) shall include requirements as to the retention and custody of material.

(5) "Prosecution material" in this section has the same meaning as in section 3.

(6) An order mentioned in subsection (1) shall be laid before Parliament not later than six months after this Act is passed.'.— [Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Alun Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 69, in clause 72, page 47, line 16 after 'section', insert


'(restrictions on use by accused of sexual or violent prosecution material) or'.

Mr. Michael: The purpose of the new clause is to stop the scandal and the disgrace of prosecution material— including photographs and interview material—being used as pornography both inside and outside prison. It is right that any material that is used by the prosecution should be viewed by the defendant in order for the defendant to prepare his or her case. However, it is not right that such material—which often includes photographs of innocent victims or transcripts of interviews with women or vulnerable children—should be in circulation inside prison or elsewhere in order to provide a most disgusting form of pornography. That is what is occurring at present. It is not new, and the Government have been aware of it for some time. It is a disgrace that must be ended.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I wish to pose some serious practical problems to the hon. Gentleman. In his new clause, he uses the phrase "sexual or violent nature" rather than "sexual and violent nature". Many of those on remand face charges regarding the commission of violent acts, such as murder or grievous bodily harm. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he does not intend to prevent prisoners on remand from working on the papers associated with their cases while in their cells, so that they may instruct their lawyers properly for the purposes of the trial? Alternatively, is the hon. Gentleman prepared to countenance the provision of special rooms within prisons where prisoners can do that work and thereby instruct their advisers properly?

Mr. Michael: I welcome the Liberal Democrats to the consideration of the Bill. We have heard little from them until now—Liberal Democrat Members were absent during the Committee's considerations. That is a matter of choice, but it is nice to know that they have decided to take a belated interest in the legislation. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had attended the Committee, he would have heard our illuminating debate and he would know the answer to his question. If he had read the new clause, he would know the answer to his question. It states:
No modification made under subsection (1) above shall have the effect of preventing the accused from inspecting any material which he would but for the provisions of this section be able to inspect.
It protects the rights of the accused and ensures that, in introducing an order, the Home Secretary protects the rights of the accused to inspect material in order to prepare the case.

Mr. Carlile: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Michael: I shall not give way for a moment or two. With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, it would be useful if he allowed us to start the debate on an issue covered by the Bill in which he and his party have taken no interest. The hon. and learned Gentleman is trying to sideline an important discussion, and I do not understand why. If the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to advance my argument for the new clause, I shall be happy to give way to him and respond to any queries that he may make. Because of his interruptions, I have not even been given the opportunity to explain why the new clause is so important.
I shall return to the basics of the argument. It is a disgrace and a scandal that evidential material, including photographs and interviews with vulnerable people who have been the subject of attacks, should be made available and circulated within prison. That happens on many occasions and we must take a grip on that problem.
This is not the first time that the issue has been raised; we raised it during our debates on the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but the matter has not been dealt with. We have just witnessed the introduction of a ten-minute Bill calling for a paedophile register—another aspect of child abuse that needs to be tackled. We hear much on that subject from Conservative Members, but there seems to be little action from the Home Secretary, who blocked the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson). My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton) also introduced a Bill to try to deal with such serious issues, but we seem to have heard nothing from the Home Secretary. Under pressure, the Home Secretary has started consultation on both those issues. He is not renowned for consulting people when he wants to do anything. The protection of children is a matter for action. Cross-party consensus should be sought to find a means of tackling the problem.
Material such as the photographs that need to be shown in evidence to reveal the nature of attacks and the interviews in which the attacks are described in detail should be protected from abuse. It should not be allowed to be circulated and used as pornographic material. I stress the need to prevent that from happening both inside and outside prison, but it is a particular scandal that it should happen in prison.
Our new clause deals with all the objections made to our first attempt in Committee to table a new clause to deal with such abuse. First, it gives a power to the Secretary of State to introduce a statutory instrument to protect material of the sort described. Secondly, it makes it a condition that the order must be placed before Parliament no later than six months after the Act is passed. That provision deals with the point made in Committee about the Home Secretary's consultation—it allows the consultation to continue and the findings to be incorporated in the statutory instrument, thus avoiding the delay caused by waiting for primary legislation. The new clause also refers to material of a sexual or violent nature and to circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the accused or others will use the material for purposes other than the preparation of the accused's defence.
To deal with the point of detail raised by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), I am advised that the words "and or" should not be used in legislation. In most circumstances, we would be dealing with material of a sexual or violent nature used in circumstances where there are reasonable grounds for supposing that the accused either would abuse that material or would come under pressure to make the material available to others.
The way in which we have phrased the new clause allows either for a knowledge of circumstances in which material might be abused or for a knowledge of circumstances in which the nature of the material would lead to temptation that it be used as pornographic material. The reason for having "or" rather than "and" is that it would be a disgrace, in my view, if, through a


technicality, some material could not be protected despite knowledge of its nature or knowledge of the circumstances. In most circumstances, both those conditions would be fulfilled.
As I have said, the interest of the accused in preparing his case would be protected by subsection (3). Subsection (4) sets out the need for the Home Secretary to make requirements in the order for the retention and custody of material. The purpose of that is to deal with three circumstances, which also cover the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery. The first is the situation in prison where arrangements would have to be made for the accused to be able to inspect material, but would not allow him to take it into his possession in a way that would allow him to abuse it or come under pressure to allow others to use it as pornographic material. The second situation is when access is controlled by a legal representative in the community, and the third is that of the unrepresented defendant, who also might need to have access to such material. In that case, it would still be right that misuse of the material should be prevented.
I hope that what we are trying to do is clear. The new clause is an enabling clause and it would enable the Home Secretary to do what he has promised to do, which is to introduce legislation to deal with the problem. The new clause would avoid an extended wait for further primary legislation, because the scandal exists now and should be tackled now.
At this point, I am happy to give way to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery.

Mr. Alex Carlile: indicated dissent.

Mr. Michael: If the hon. and learned Gentleman does not wish me to give way, let us make progress.
We were surprised that the Government rejected our amendments in Committee, although the Minister raised some issues, which we have overcome in the new clause. I am even more surprised that the Government have not come forward with a similar enabling clause by this stage, and the Minister should explain why not. This is an important issue and we have tabled an enabling clause that would allow rapid progress, if the Government really want to make progress. If there were to be any technical difficulties with the new clause, the Bill still has to go to the House of Lords, and that will give the Government an opportunity to undertake any fine tuning. If the new clause were to be accepted, it would deal with a serious and scandalous issue.
I am sure that hon. Members will have received correspondence from the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which invites us to consider the experience of an individual who has to stand up and tell a room full of strangers about a traumatic experience. We have been invited to imagine the experience of being repeatedly questioned and even called a liar to the point of tears. We have been asked to imagine the effect of those circumstances on a child who is only six years old. The NSPCC has underlined the terrifying ordeal that may be faced by children who have been physically or sexually abused when they act as witnesses in court cases in Britain, and it has rightly drawn our attention to a scandal which we, as a society and a Parliament, need to do far more about.
The NSPCC also makes the point that the children face yet another abuse from the very legal system that is meant to protect them. We shall shortly hear views about the way in which cases involving children's evidence are dealt with.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman seems to be talking about evidence by children, which is covered in new clause 6.

Mr. Michael: As I was saying, those children are going on to face yet another abuse from the very legal system that is meant to protect them. Under that legal system, we currently allow evidence in the form of photographs of and interviews with children to be circulated in prisons and, in some circumstances, in public, to be used as pornography. It is that scandal which the new clause seeks to end. I was merely trying to place the new clause in the context of the wider range of problems facing victims of child sexual abuse and other victims of sexual offences, something that we need to take much more seriously.
As further proof of the seriousness of the issue, I point to evidence made available by "The Cook Report", which showed that the tendency to abuse children is stimulated by the use of certain material. The programme showed interviews with paedophiles, one of whom referred to himself and those with whom he associated as
master of manipulators, extremely adept in lying, and telling our victims, our friends, people that saw us, that they had no idea that we were of this character".
A survey undertaken as part of the programme "Children in Danger: Special" shows that 90 per cent. of paedophiles say that they will reoffend, many of them encouraged by the kind of filth peddled by some of the individuals shown in the programme.
The tragedy is that many of the 90 per cent. who say in prison that they will be inclined to reoffend as soon as they are released also have their inclinations stimulated by the circulation of evidence which at the moment legitimately comes into the hands of prisoners but which is then passed on, for the use not only of the individual defendant but of others. We owe it to the children who may be the victims of the fresh offences that 90 per cent. of offenders think they are likely to commit after leaving prison to ensure that every step that can be taken is taken to prevent the continuation of such activity.
It is difficult for reasonable people to understand the mindset of those who get involved in child sex offences and, indeed, adult sex offences. However, after speaking about child prostitution when we debated a private Member's Bill only a few weeks ago, I was shocked to receive one particular letter. It was a reasonable letter, which included a name and address and had been thoughtfully typed. It asked why we were concerned about child prostitutes and said:
They are in employment in a pleasant and not too demanding job. They are earning money and they do eat. A good situation to them?
When there are people with such a mindset, when the material that is required to pursue prosecution can be circulated in prison in such a way as to make a bad situation even worse, and when the evidence shows that 90 per cent. of child sex offenders think that they are likely to reoffend as soon as they get out, surely there is good reason to take a grip on the situation now.
I conclude by making two final points. First, we are not arguing a new case. It has been made for several years, and although the response of a consultation period may be sensible, it is too little, too late. The new clause would allow the completion of the consultation that the Home Secretary has undertaken, but would also allow him to act now and, at the end of the consultation, to introduce a statutory instrument and proceed to legislation without further delay.
Secondly, the new clause is carefully phrased to protect the interests of the defendant, so that he will have the opportunity to inspect the material to whatever extent is necessary to prepare his case. Clearly, his representative will also have that freedom. Therefore, the new clause does not undermine the rights of the defendant, but it protects the rights of victims.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I start by reminding the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who I think got out of bed on the wrong side this morning, that Committees are selected by the Committee of Selection.
New clause 5 is an awful muddle and it would be a nightmare to interpret. But, having said that, I support its thrust and, if necessary, will vote for it because it tackles an important issue. However, facets of the issue would have to be met if such a provision were to become part of our law.
In particular—I see in the Chamber a few other people who have had the experience of attempting to take instructions from defendants charged with violent or sexual offences in some of Britain's less savoury prisons—it is extremely difficult to obtain instructions over a proper length of time and in reasonable circumstances.
If prisoners are not to be able to have all the papers that are relevant to their cases in their cells—there may be good reasons for that, as the hon. Gentleman suggested—two steps must be taken. Indeed, they are needed whether or not the new clause is passed.
The first is that proper facilities should be provided in prisons so that prisoners can consider all the material in their cases, including material that may properly be put to them dealing with violent or sexual aspects of their cases. The second is that it is high time that prisons provided proper facilities so that counsel can have conferences with their clients in reasonable circumstances, at reasonable times of day and of a reasonable length.
Having said that, I am content to support the new clause for what it means, although, I emphasise, not for what it says, because it says it very badly.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) has an active legal practice and can point out some of the practical difficulties involved in taking instructions, often in rather cramped, unsavoury and unsatisfactory conditions.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) on his initiative. I am confident that it is part of a series of suggestions for

reform that he has made which the Government will ultimately, but belatedly, accept, but that they should have met rather more positively at an early stage.
The matter that my hon. Friend raises is one of real concern. It is surprising that it has not been dealt with before. My hon. Friend has given the genesis and development of his proposal. Surely the Government have had ample time since 1994 to accept that there is a real matter of concern here, to consult and to come forward with their own proposal. It is sad that the Government are stronger on rhetoric than on taking practical measures to deal with the real problems. This is a matter which, had the Home Secretary wanted, he could have included in that rather notorious list of reforms at the Conservative party conference, or about which he could have done something by now.
I follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery by saying that, although various practical problems arise, I think that we all agree with the principle of the new clause. However, the fact that it is an enabling clause allows those practical difficulties to be addressed by the process of consultation. I note, for example, the duty of the prosecutor to disclose.
The real mischief is leaving material of a violent or sexual nature in the hands of those who might misuse it, either defendants who are not in custody or, more relevantly, those who are in custody. Everyone who has been in practice or is now in practice knows well the sort of material concerned. It may include photographs. Having dealt with nasty multiple rape cases and murder cases involving photographs of parts of bodies or bodies which have been disfigured, one can well imagine the currency of such photographs in prison. However, it is unnecessary for prisoners to take away photographs and so be able to show them around in the prison. They can look at them without having to take them away.
The problem arises more, perhaps, with depositions where there is a series of interviews, perhaps with a child, or where there is a description of a multiple rape or a murder, which might excite the passions of those in prison. The defendant might need adequate time to digest the material. It may be sufficient for accommodation to be made for counsel to take adequate instructions, but we must guard against the prisoner being able to trade in such material in prison, feeding his own and others' addiction. If the Government recognise that there is a problem, they should find practical ways to address justice for the defendant while ensuring that material such as interviews, descriptions and photographs does not become a currency in prison. It is not beyond the wit of the Government to come forward with practical proposals.
I am a little concerned about who decides what material will or will not be made available. At the moment, it looks as though the discretion is with the prosecution, and there will have to be not only joint consultation between prosecution and defence but some form of appeal, if necessary, to ensure that the interests of justice are considered. These are practical problems, but with good will they can be solved.
The other practical question about which I need to be satisfied is the phrase "reasonable grounds for supposing". How can one guess in advance who will use or misuse such material? If the material were put into the hands of a defendant, that defendant would be tempted to misuse it. All defendants would. That will have to be dealt with.
I am also concerned that an individual may, for various reasons, choose not to be represented. Depositions will have to be made fully available to such an individual, and there could be few curbs on the misuse of material by a defendant in person who is not represented, whether or not he or she is in custody. If the defendant is in custody, it is difficult to see how any deposition can be withheld from that individual if the interests of justice are to be served.
I am confident that, with good will, those problems can be ironed out, but from my own experience of some pretty lurid cases—both sexual and in terms of violence—and my knowledge of the way in which explicit material can be misused, particularly in prisons, I commend my hon. Friend for having raised the issue, but condemn the Government for not having responded as they should. I believe that they should, as a matter of urgency, be prepared, if not now, certainly in the other place, to come forward with practical means to meet this very real problem.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): I take some comfort from the fact that the new clause suggests that the Labour party has finally accepted our view that preventing the misuse of sensitive victim statements and photographs is a particularly difficult and complex task. It is likely that rushing into inadequate legislation without the opportunity to consult practitioners on the detail would achieve little.
If the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) thinks that the new clause is a muddle, he should have seen the amendment tabled by the Opposition in Committee.
I am disappointed that the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has still not fully appreciated the intricacies of devising a workable and effective scheme.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) deplored the rhetoric and then condemned the Government. He fully supported the new clause but then went on to shoot it down by pointing out all the holes in it. He said that he was worried about the reasonable grounds and that there would have to be safeguards for this and that. He pointed out all the faults in the new clause, and he was right to do so because it is fatally flawed.
There is no disagreement in the House on the need for a scheme to prevent the misuse of some of the material that can circulate in prisons, but we should not underestimate the difficulties of legislation. When we last invited the views of interested parties on measures to tackle the problem, there was no consensus on how best to proceed. That is hardly surprising because there is a difficult balance to strike between the rights of defendants to know all the evidence against them and the need to protect victims from improper use of their statements or of photographs of them.
As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary announced last month, we have decided that a statutory scheme is needed. We have devised proposals that are workable and effective. We shall embark on a consultation process in the very near future, in the light of which we shall legislate as soon as possible. It serves

no interest, least of all that of the credibility of the Labour party, to try to anticipate that consultation by legislating on the basis proposed in the new clause.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The Minister has used the phrase, "as soon as possible". My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth mentioned that the problem was first raised in 1994. Does that suggest that there is any real urgency on the part of the Government?

Mr. Maclean: There is real urgency on the part of the Government. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, when my right hon. and learned Friend produced his famous 27 proposals, there was ridicule from the Labour party. Half the Labour party, including its leader, said that they were just an ineffective publicity stunt. We published those proposals and we have legislated on the vast majority of them. There is only one outstanding proposal, which the Bill includes. We now find the Labour party saying, "You should have done more." Labour Members ridiculed the proposals at the time, but they now say that they do not go far enough and that we should have included a host of other things in legislation. New issues which deserve to be tackled will always come along, but not a single Labour Member demanded that we included this measure with the 27 proposals and added it to a Criminal Justice Bill.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth should not provoke me in this short debate. If he looks at the voting record of Labour Members on this issue, or on other child protection issues that were debated in the 1980s, he will see that some of his hon. Friends have a sorry record.
I shall give the House two examples to show how the new clause is fundamentally flawed. First, any scheme must include provisions for its requirements to be enforced. We have made it clear that we believe that it should be an offence for defendants to have protected material in their possession other than in accordance with the requirements of a supervised access regime. Those responsible for protecting the material must also be liable if they commit any breaches of the regime.
The new clause would modify the duty on the prosecution. In those circumstances, it would not be right for an order made under it to provide for new offences and penalties to be applied to defendants. In addition, those new offences would require substantial penalties of up to two years' imprisonment to deal with the worst offences. When we introduce our statutory scheme, if we find that there are criminals in prison who have access to such material and who are breaking rules by circulating pornographic material, we want to have substantial penalties against them.
The House would never agree to a penalty of up to two years' imprisonment being created by order of the Secretary of State, even if the new clause contained an express power for the order to include criminal offences. The new clause is, of course, silent on this matter. If the Government said that the Home Secretary could, by order, introduce a power to send people to prison for two years, the Labour party would be the first to condemn us and, in that case, rightly so.
The second fundamental flaw in the Opposition's argument is this. We believe that all material that might be misused, whether or not it forms part of the prosecution case, should be protected. Any unused material—not just


the pornographic material—that might be part of the prosecution's case should be protected. There could be a whole raft of unused prosecution material that might be disallowed or not given in evidence. We cannot allow sexual material that could involve children to circulate around prisons because it has not been protected. There must be immediate and certain protection for victims.
As the new clause is confined to the prosecutor's duty under the Bill to disclose prosecution material as defined in clause 3, it would apply only to that unused prosecution material and not to the central evidence on which the prosecution intends to rely, and which is bound to include sensitive victims' statements and photographs. That would be plainly ridiculous.
5 pm
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery identified another problem. The new clause ignored the advice of the royal commission on criminal justice, which did not identify the information on common assaults or violent crime as a concern. That problem relates to sexual material. That is the only stuff that has currency in prison and is circulating. The new clause is far too wide in catching violent material. Sexually violent material would be caught under the sexual definition, but there is no point in including material on other assaults and violence. The core of the problem is not that, but sexual material. We want to home in on that and to provide automatic protection for all victims and all sexual material in statements, and we shall be consulting on that shortly.
It is not a matter of saying that we accept the spirit of the new clause and we shall tickle it or amend it in another place. The new clause is fatally flawed. If our experience on the Bill is anything to go by, it is worth consulting the legal practitioners before rushing into legislation.

Mr. Alex Carlile: indicated assent.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery is nodding in agreement. In that case, I agree with him on the matter.
There was no consensus when the Government last considered the matter. I hope that when we publish our consultation paper shortly, we shall have the views of the Law Society and others so that, if there are changes to be made, we can make them and introduce sensible and workable legislation that will protect victims as the new clause manifestly fails to do.

Mr. Michael: The Labour party's voting record on crime and children's issues stands the test of time and it is mere bluster for the Minister to suggest otherwise. One has only to look at the series of issues on which the Opposition have been constructive long before they were identified by the Government to recognise that the Labour party is serious about tackling crime, just as it is serious about tackling the misuse of evidential material of a sexual and violent nature.
The Minister says that it is wrong to rush in. Let me make two points on that. First, that has not stopped the Home Secretary tackling any issue that he perceives to be popular with the Conservative party conference. He is renowned as the Home Secretary who rushes in without

advice on issue after issue. Secondly, the Government have had long enough to consult and to construct serious amendments. They do not need more time. It is an excuse, and not a very convincing one, to suggest that further delay should be allowed. If the Government were determined to end that disgraceful abuse, they would have started consultation two years ago.
The Minister suggests that merely sexual material and not violent material should be caught by any legislation. That is not enough. Photographs and material involving mutilation and violence on people have been at the core of many serious cases. The advice of those concerned with such issues is that there is often a mixture of sexual and violent motivation and that the domination of children and women is at the heart of many of the offences that we seek to cover in the new clause.
The Minister would be wise to recognise the need to extend the Bill beyond merely sexual evidence to sexual and/or violent evidence, as we have proposed in the new clause. If there is cross-party agreement, as the Minister suggested, that we should end this abuse, the Government should be finding ways to tackle the abuse, but yet again the Labour party shows the sense of responsibility appropriate to Government by trying to tackle the problem.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery should understand my slight frustration when he intervened during my first sentence on the new clause. Labour Members have spent time in Committee trying to make constructive suggestions and trying to tease out information when the Liberal Democrats chose not to be involved in the Bill. We have attempted to do that difficult job without the benefit of parliamentary counsel.
When the Minister makes minor criticisms of what we have done, he should bear in mind the fact that the Opposition are trying to fill the gap that has been left by the Government's unwillingness to tackle serious problems. Having said that, I thank the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery for his support for the new clause and for his constructive criticisms. I acknowledge that he has raised important issues. That is why we phrased the new clause so that the regulations would be required to take into consideration the practical details and would specifically require the disclosure to be no less as a result of the new clause in order to protect the interests of the defendant while also protecting the interests of those portrayed in photographs or interview evidence.
My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) asked who would decide how the measures would operate. That should be covered in the regulations. I have taken advice on the capacity to deal with that and appeal rights by statutory instrument. I would be happier for detailed legislation to be part of the primary legislation, but as the Government have not included it in the primary legislation, have not taken the hint in Committee and have not undertaken the consultation that should have started a couple of years ago, it is surely better to pass this enabling legislation and, in the fullness of time, to let the scheme be amended to make it perfect in the light of experience.
I am absolutely clear that the difficulties of producing appropriate legislation are no excuse for doing nothing. Immediate action is needed on this scandal. The new clause should be passed into law in order to make sure that we act on it now.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 235.

Division No. 142]
[5.07 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Golding, Mrs Llin


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Graham, Thomas


Allen, Graham
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Alton, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Grocott, Bruce


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Hain, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Hall, Mike


Austin-Walker, John
Harvey, Nick


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Barnes, Harry
Henderson, Doug


Barron, Kevin
Heppell, John


Battle, John
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bayley, Hugh
Hinchliffe, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Hoey, Kate


Bell, Stuart
Hoon, Geoffrey


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Betts, Clive
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blunkett, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boateng, Paul
Hutton, John


Bradley, Keith
Illsley, Eric


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Ingram, Adam


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Burden, Richard
Johnston, Sir Russell


Byers, Stephen
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Caborn, Richard
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Jowell, Tessa


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Keen, Alan


Campbell-Savours, D N
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Khabra, Piara S


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Livingstone, Ken


Coffey, Ann
Llwyd, Elfyn


Connarty, Michael
Lynne, Ms Liz


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McAllion, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McAvoy, Thomas


Corston, Jean
McCartney, Ian


Cox, Tom
Macdonald, Calum


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
McKelvey, William


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
McWilliam, John


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Madden, Max


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Mahon, Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mandelson, Peter


Denham, John
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Dowd, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Eagle, Ms Angela
Maxton, John


Eastham, Ken
Michael, Alun


Etherington, Bill
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Fatchett, Derek
Milburn, Alan


Faulds, Andrew
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fisher, Mark
Morgan, Rhodri


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fraser, John
Mudie, George


Fyfe, Maria
Mullin, Chris


Galbraith, Sam
Murphy, Paul


Gapes, Mike
Olner, Bill


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gerrard, Neil
Pearson, Ian





Pendry, Tom
Stott, Roger


Pike, Peter L
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pope, Greg
Straw, Jack


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Timms, Stephen


Primarolo, Dawn
Tipping, Paddy


Quin, Ms Joyce
Touhig, Don


Reid, Dr John
Trickett, Jon


Rendel, David
Turner, Dennis


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Tyler, Paul
 

Rogers, Allan
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Rooker, Jeff
Wallace, James


Rooney, Terry
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Andrew


Short, Clare
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Spellar, John



Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Joe Benton.


Stevenson, George





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Alexander, Richard
Day, Stephen


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Devlin, Tim


Amess, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dover, Den


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Duncan, Alan


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dykes, Hugh


Bates, Michael
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Batiste, Spencer
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Body, Sir Richard
Evennett, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Brandreth, Gyles
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bright, Sir Graham
Forth, Eric


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs Angela
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Budgen, Nicholas
Gale, Roger


Burns, Simon
Gardiner, Sir George


Burt, Alistair
Garnier, Edward


Butcher, John
Gill, Christopher


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Gillan, Mrs. Cheryl


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carrington, Matthew
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, Sir John


Cash, William
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clappison, James
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Coe, Sebastian
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Congdon, David
Hannam, Sir John


Conway, Derek
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Hawkins, Nick


Couchman, James
Hawksley, Warren


Cran, James
Hayes, Jerry


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Heald, Oliver






Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hendry, Charles
Richards, Rod


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Riddick, Graham


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robathan, Andrew


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Hunter, Andrew
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jack, Michael
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Jenkin, Bernard
Sackville, Tom


Jessel, Toby
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Key, Robert
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shersby, Sir Michael


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Sims, Roger


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knox, Sir David
Speed, Sir Keith


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Spink, Dr Robert


Legg, Barry
Sproat, Iain


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lidington, David
Steen, Anthony


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stephen, Michael


Lord, Michael
Stern, Michael


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Stewart, Allan


MacKay, Andrew
Streeter, Gary


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Sweeney, Walter


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sykes, John


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mans, Keith
Temple-Morris, Peter


Marland, Paul
Thomason, Roy


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Merchant, Piers
Thumham, Peter



Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Trotter, Neville


Moate, Sir Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Viggers, Peter


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nelson, Anthony
Walden, George


Neubert, Sir Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Nicholls, Patrick
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Watts, John


Norris, Steve
Whittingdale, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Widdecombe, Ann


Ottaway, Richard
Willetts, David


Page, Richard
Wilshire, David


Paice, James
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wolfson, Mark


Pawsey, James
Wood, Timothy


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Yeo, Tim


Pickles, Eric
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Porter, David (Waveney)



Powell, William (Corby)
Tellers for the Noes:


Rathbone, Tim
Mr. Roger Knapman and Mr. Bowen Wells.


Redwood, Rt Hon John

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 6

VIDEO RECORDINGS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF CHILD WITNESSES

'—(1) Section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), paragraph (a) shall be omitted.

(3) After subsection (3) there shall be inserted—

"(3A) Where a video recording is to be tendered in evidence under this section the court may grant leave for a child witness to be cross-examined at a pre-trial hearing in informal surroundings at which only—

(a) the judge;
(b) counsel for the parties;
(c) an appropriate adult to accompany the child as set out in the rules of court

shall be present in the same room as the child.

(3B) At any pre-trial hearing the defendant shall be permitted to see and hear the proceedings and to communicate with his legal advisor by such means as shall be laid down by the rules of court.

(3C) The pre-trial hearing of the cross-examination of the child witness shall be video recorded and the video recording shall, with leave of the court, be tendered in evidence before the jury.".'.—[Mrs. Golding.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 7—Time limits for pre-trial hearings—
'.—(1) Where permission is given under section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 subsection (3A), the pre-trial hearing shall be fixed within six weeks of the transfer or committal proceedings unless the court considers that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
(2) Where the court does not consider that the usual time limit of six weeks would be in the interest of justice, an alternative time limit shall be fixed by the court.'. 
New clause 8—Recall of child witnesses—
'.—There shall be inserted after subsection (5) of section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988—
(5A) The court may grant leave for the recall of a child witness who was cross examined at a preliminary hearing if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to give such permission. 
(5B) Where the court allows a child witness to be recalled, a further out-of-court hearing should be held under the same conditions as the preliminary hearing".'.
New clause 9—Evidence of absent children—
'.—(1) The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 shall be amended as follows.
(2) In section 42, in subsection (1) the words "or by video recording" shall be inserted after the words "may take in writing".
(3) In section 43, the words "he or" shall be omitted.'.

Mrs. Golding: I wish to declare an interest, in that I am a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the joint chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for children.
I pay tribute to the work that the NSPCC has done to achieve justice for children, and which has led to the production of these new clauses. The Minister has said that the Labour party has not been heavily involved in this issue, but I can refer him to three Acts that contain measures that were proposed by Labour Members and others in an effort to get the Government to do something to provide more justice for children. I also wish to pay tribute to Baroness Faithfull, who died recently. She was irrepressible, and will be irreplaceable as far as children are concerned.
Much has been done to improve our criminal justice system through a series of Criminal Justice Acts. Unrepresented defendants can no longer cross-examine a child witness. Child witnesses are allowed to give evidence through a live television link or from behind screens with the leave of the court. Video recording can be given in evidence in place of the examination-in-chief, as long as the child is available for cross-examination at the trial. The competency requirement for child witnesses has been abolished.
It is clear from research that, even when a child has given the evidence-in-chief on video and has then been cross-examined by live television link, he or she finds the experience of live cross-examination at trial extremely intimidating. Children suffer from high stress while waiting for our court system to move, and there can be long delays before they give evidence. These new clauses would go a long way towards remedying that problem.
Imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, having to speak in a court to a room full of strangers while being repeatedly told that you may be lying. Very often, that can be done until the witness breaks down in tears and does not know what to say. Imagine being six, seven, eight or nine years old and having to face our court system. It is bad enough for an adult—it must be much worse for a young child. Too many children face such abuse from a legal system that is supposed to protect them.
The NSPCC, which does much good work to help children who have to go to court to give evidence, told me that a 13-year-old child called Philip had to wait seven months to go to court. He attended the trial, but was unable to testify at the last moment. He said:
I could have done it six months ago when I was so angry about what he did to me. I can't face it now. I've had too long to think about it".
A problem for many children is that the stress and strain of waiting to go to court is too much for them. How can we protect other children if a child cannot give evidence? How can the accused defend himself if the case does not come to trial? How can we protect other children and break the cycle of abuse? We must obtain the best possible evidence from child witnesses without inflicting more emotional damage upon them. A court is no place for children, and we must do more to tackle that fact.
We must implement the recommendations of the 1989 Judge Pigot report of the Home Office advisory group into the giving of video evidence, and allow children to give evidence at an early stage outside court. That key proposal is receiving strong backing from people and organisations directly involved with children. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said:
Overall, we consider that the Pigot Committee recommendations should be implemented fully.

The report of the Commission on Children and Violence said:
The proposals concerning child witnesses in the Pigot Report should be implemented in full.
The British Association of Social Workers said:
The recommendations of the Pigot Report should be implemented in full, which call for pre-trial hearings.
The Law Society said:
The Pigot Report recommended that a judge should be able to order that the cross-examination of a child witness takes place at a pre-trial hearing in informal surroundings
and backed that recommendation.
The Criminal Bar Association and the Law Society back the proposal. the Government should certainly back it. It would go a long way to remove the unnecessary stress on child witnesses, and it would be better for the child's welfare if such cases came to court as quickly as possible. That would ensure that fuller and more accurate evidence was given, and it would be in the interests of the accused. In addition, the Director of Public Prosecutions said recently:
A justice system where decisions of guilt or innocence are based on the fortitude of witnesses rather than the truth of allegations should not be permitted.
New clause 6 is backed by a wide variety of people and groups. The Minister said that we should consult legal practitioners. We have, and we have received much backing. I hope that the Minister will support it. We have asked for this measure for a long time, and it is time that the Government supported it.
New clause 8 provides for the judge to recall a child witness if he deems it necessary. The Minister may say that that negates the benefits of new clause 6, but I do not see it that way. It is in the interests of the accused and of the accuser that there should be a mechanism for the recall of a witness who has testified if something unforeseen has occurred. Many sex abuse cases, I am told, are perfectly straightforward. The evidence is known to both sides, and it would be exceptional for a recall to be applied for. It is another recommendation of the Pigot committee.
Despite its contradictory appearance, the advantage of the pre-trial hearing is that the main evidence will have been dealt with and the child will be expected to deal only with the new points on application to the judge. That is fair to both sides, and that is what our justice system should be about.
New clause 9 deals with evidence from absent children. It is another proposal that has been made before, but it is no less relevant today. The Children and Young Persons Act 1933 very sensibly allowed for written evidence to be given by children who were not well enough to be brought to court. The new clause would extend that provision to the use of video recorded evidence. As technology moves on, so should we.
If a child is ill in hospital or immobile because of a fractured femur or because they are in traction, it is not possible to move them, or the bed, into the court. It makes sense to take a video recording of the evidence. There is no need to suppose that because a child is immobilised by broken bones, he or she will not be lucid or able to give evidence. That might occur rarely—I have not been able to find any cases of written evidence being taken from a hospital bed—but it is no reason why we should not have such a provision for the occasions when it is.
5.30 pm
New clause 7 deals with the time limit for pre-trial hearings and states:
Where permission is given under section 32A of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 subsection (3A), the pre-trial hearing shall be fixed within six weeks of the transfer or committal proceedings unless the court considers that it would be contrary to the interests of justice to do so.
All the Home Office Ministers to whom I have listened—and I have listened to many—have emphasised their commitment to children and the need to hold hearings as quickly as possible and to bring such cases to court quickly. New clause 7 seeks to ensure that the pre-trial hearing is fixed at an early date to reduce the stress suffered by children. Under the present system, there is an average of 10 months before cases come to court. All too often, they are thrown out. One case has been waiting 13 months to go to trial. What sort of court system is that? What does that say about a Government who allow it?
I had a letter from a lady from Carlisle about a man who had been brought to court charged with indecently assaulting her 14-year-old daughter. He was also charged with assaulting his daughter. The charge was brought in May 1995. The case went to Carlisle Crown court on 6 September 1995. On 16 October, the court arranged a trial date of 15 January, but the judge directed that there should be a hearing on 17 November, when he would consider whether to allow the two victims to give their evidence by video link.
I got this information from the chief executive of the Court Service's reply to my complaint. He said:
On 17 November, the judge did not decide on this point but told the prosecution how he was likely to view such an application. The provision of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 about evidence by video link relates to child witnesses under the age of fourteen…The judge therefore told the prosecution that on the basis of the age of the witnesses alone it would be difficult to persuade him to agree to the application.
I do not understand that, because the Criminal Justice Act was amended in 1991 to permit children up to the age of 17 to give their evidence in that way. It is obvious that the judge did not know about that. The judge also asked the prosecution to consider the likely effects on the other victim of giving evidence against her father. I do not know who the judge was or why he should think that fathers do not abuse their children. Often, someone in the family—and very often the father—is involved in abuse cases. If that judge is saying that children cannot give evidence against their father, hardly any cases would come to court. That would be nonsense.
In this instance, the Crown Prosecution Service—that well-known defender of children—told the court that it no longer wished to continue the prosecution and offered no evidence. The man got off scot free and still lives with his daughter. Nothing has been done about him.
The Government are always promising action to reduce delay. New clause 7 should at least concentrate their mind. Both the Bar Association and the Law Society think that something can be done. It is time that the courts and the Government did more than they have up to now and concentrated more on giving justice to our young children.

Ms Ann Coffey: I support my hon. Friend's new clause. She has campaigned hard and long

for changes in the way in which children are allowed to present evidence in court. The crucial part of the proposals would allow pre-trial cross-examination of children and speed up the court process.
Appearing as a witness in court can be an intimidating experience for anyone, and it can be particularly traumatic for children, especially when they are being asked to give evidence involving descriptions of incidents in which they have been sexually or physically abused. Such evidence may be against a parent or step-parent. The child is already traumatised by shame, guilt, anger and deep distress. The initial disclosure by the child can cause great difficulties for the family of which he or she was a member. The family's emotional disturbance will continue for months. The child and the family have to cope with that.
It is not only the immediate families that have to cope. If the family member accused of assault is still in the house, the child will probably be moved to foster parents or to a children's home. The foster parents, or staff of the home, have to cope with deeply disturbed children for a long time. The child may ask about what is happening or when he or she can go home. Children, especially young children, do not have the maturity to understand the complexities of the justice system.
Speeding the system up is important. The longer the delay in resolution by the court process, the longer it is before counselling and therapy can begin, not only for the child, but for other family members. The longer the delay in beginning counselling, the harder it is to repair the damage—if it can be repaired. No one should underestimate the effect of sexual abuse on children. I am not an expert, but I worked for 20 years in child care before I was elected to the House, and I know enough to understand how complicated, sensitive and difficult the subject is.
We must have a court system that delivers justice so that, as far as possible, the innocent go free and the guilty are convicted. Sexual abuse is a serious offence. In difficult cases, where forensic evidence may not exist or be inconclusive, the evidence of the child is crucial. The new clauses acknowledge that such evidence must be credible and open to proper examination. Pre-trial cross-examination takes nothing away from that process, but would ensure that it took account of the special vulnerability of child witnesses.
There is often a great gap between the Government's rhetoric on an issue and their actions. On this matter, the gap is very evident. The new clauses have cross-party support and give the Minister the opportunity to close the gap. Accepting their principle would give justice to children who are traumatised by the way in which the court process is set up, and further traumatised by the way that they have to give evidence, on top of the trauma that they have suffered as victims of assault.

Mr. Roger Sims: The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is a doughty champion of children's causes. She and the hon. Member for Stockport (Ms Coffey) have effectively deployed the case for the new clauses, to which I was glad to add my name to ensure that these issues were discussed today.
I shall not detain the House by repeating the arguments, but I was much involved in the early stages of legislation to make the video recording of children's evidence


admissible in the courts. I drew on my experience as a magistrate, as chairman of my local juvenile court before I entered Parliament, and on my close knowledge of the work of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I was a predecessor of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme as a trustee of that society. I saw something of the pioneering work that was done in Bexley to work out ways in which evidence could be taken on video.
When the idea was first proposed, the hope was that, when an accused person was confronted with a video recording of evidence given by the child as soon as possible after the offence was revealed, and realised that the evidence would be produced in court, he—it is usually he, but could. of course be she—would change his plea to avoid the child having to appear in court and realise that such evidence would be difficult for him to refute.
Unfortunately, although that hope has been realised in some cases, it has not happened to the extent to which many of us had hoped. As a result, a number of such charges still find their way to court. That being so, it is all the more important that the recommendations of the Pigot report are implemented. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government specifically requested the Pigot report. The committee was set up by the Government to advise them on how such matters should be handled. That the report's recommendations have been implemented only in part has shown the potential value of video evidence, and, now, there is surely a need to implement them in full.
It is important that our legal procedures provide justice for the accused—of course I understand that in this context—but it is also important that there should be justice for children. For all the reasons described by the hon. Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme and for Stockport, that is not always so at the moment.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will feel able to accept some or all of the new clauses—at least in spirit, if not to the letter. Failing that, I hope that he will be able to give some convincing explanation why he cannot do so.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall start by paying tribute to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). Since she came into the House, she has dedicated herself to this issue and has already achieved a great deal. I hope that she will achieve more tonight.
I want to try to offer some apolitical, practical observations on what is proposed in the light of what is already available. As it happens, and as the House knows, I am a practising barrister. I have practised in cases during which the existing video provisions have been used—as a prosecutor in some and as a defender in others. I have also been a recorder of the Crown court for a number of years and, as a judge, I have conducted cases in which video equipment has been used.
My observation is that, although there were many doubts among practitioners about the way in which the video system would work, it has worked very well. It has been possible to prosecute and defend effectively, and judges, after all, have had to learn only how to control a box with three buttons on it, which most of them have managed without too much difficulty. The system is simple and effective.
In accordance with the recommendations of the Pigot committee, it is proposed that, having tried and tested the system, we should extend it to cover cross-examination.
It would not be a very dramatic extension, and I believe that all practitioners with experience regard it as feasible. It would not remove from the trial judge discretion— indeed, it specifically preserves it—where appropriate to have a live cross-examination in open court with the defendant and witness present, which would undoubtedly remain appropriate in some cases, although I suspect not very many.
In contrast to new clause 5, this group of new clauses seem peculiarly well drafted. I hope that the Government will see fit to take not a very bold step, but a sensible and logical step, to allow the next stage to proceed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): I do not think that there is any particular difference between hon. Members on the need to look after the interests of children in what might often be an extremely stressful situation. I add my tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding). I know of their enormous work, especially as trustees of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and in other ways, looking after the interests of children. The Government also want to try to preserve those interests. Because of that, I am unable to recommend that the House should accept the new clauses, and I shall explain why.
The new clauses reflect the concern that we all share. We must be responsive to the needs of children in such a difficult situation. It was, of course, that concern that prompted the Government to include in the Bill provisions on binding rulings on applications to give evidence by means of a video recording or live television link. The new clauses go further in a way in which, as I shall explain, we do not believe is in the best interests of children.
New clause 6, which repeats some of the recommendations of the 1989 Pigot report, provides for a scheme of pre-trial cross-examination of children to be video recorded for use at trial. The hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme suggests that, in that way, cross-examination could be conducted sooner, that the child would never have to appear in court, and that there would be no constraints on the provision of therapy. I am sure that those are all laudable objectives, but neither we nor the former Lord Chief Justice, whose views we sought, are satisfied that they can be achieved. Indeed, we are concerned that such an approach could result in more stress for the child rather than less.
Implementation of the Pigot report's recommendations has been mentioned. I should like to clarify that—I am sure hon. Members are aware of it—we have implemented the vast majority of the Pigot recommendations, mostly in the Criminal Justice Act 1991. Many helpful recommendations were implemented. If they were thought to be practical, they were introduced in that Act. I am sure that they have done much to help the way in which we deal with children in court or procedural settings.
The fundamental difficulty with the approach proposed by the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme is that a proper cross-examination cannot take place until the defence is fully prepared to proceed with the trial. At that stage, the aim should be to proceed with the trial as soon as possible. I acknowledge the hon. Lady's remarks about


the need to proceed with the trial as soon as possible, but it is unlikely that pre-trial cross-examination could take place very much earlier than it does at present.
New clause 7 seeks to address that problem by imposing a time limit within which cross-examination must be completed following committal proceedings. In effect, as I have just explained, that time limit would be one within which both sides must be ready, not only for cross-examination, but for the trial to proceed. New clause 7 also provides for extensions of the time limit. It is likely that such a power would be used frequently, and that there would, therefore, be no practical improvement.
A further difficulty with pre-trial cross-examination is that it could lead to a child having to be recalled to answer further questions at the trial and so being caused further distress. New clause 8 recognises the potential for such recalls. That was also an aspect of the proposals on which we sought the views of the former Lord Chief Justice at an earlier stage in the passage of the Bill. He and his senior colleagues took the view that further questions might easily arise and that, bearing in mind the judge's responsibility to ensure a fair trial, the judge could not reasonably refuse the defence the chance to do so. Further cross-examination would also be video recorded, but could place further stress on the child who had to go through the process two or more times, perhaps at short notice.
New clause 9 appears to be designed to create a similar scheme by a different route. Sections 42 and 43 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 provide for a child's evidence to be given in the form of a written deposition taken down by a magistrate. The offence must be one involving sexual assault or violence and a qualified medical practitioner has to give evidence that attendance at court would involve serious danger to the child's life or health. The provisions were intended to provide a method of getting so-called "sick-bed" evidence by children tested at the bedside and admitted into court. The provisions are hardly ever used, as the hon. Lady suggested—no doubt because the test of serious danger to the child's life or health is very difficult to meet. In addition, evidence taken in that way is admissible only if the defence has had an opportunity to cross-examine the child.
The new clause would, therefore, allow the child's evidence and the cross-examination to be video recorded in advance of the trial. For that reason, it raises all the difficulties about pre-trial cross-examination to which I have just referred. A child in such a condition should be protected from stress as far as is humanly possible. In any event, if a child is seriously ill it must be doubtful whether he or she should be expected to have to video record evidence or undergo cross-examination.
The Government are unable to accept the new clauses, not because we doubt in any way the strong views that have been expressed, or the commitment of those who have expressed them to the interests of children, but because, for the reasons that I have explained, we do not believe that they are in the best interests of the child. Rather than embark on changes of the kind proposed in the new clauses, we are pursuing a range of practical improvements to the present arrangements for child witnesses to give evidence.
I was most interested to hear the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) endorse the current processes, although he support the new clauses. We shall be engaging the Criminal Justice Consultative Council in further consideration of ways to reduce delays and practical measures to ease stress on children by familiarising them with the court and preparing them for what to expect. We are conducting further research to promote best practice for video recorded interviews with children, and we have contributed £35,000 to help fund the preparation of a video to encourage best practice in dealing with children in court.
We are also considering what more can be done to encourage greater use of video recordings of evidence-in-chief and to make the use of the live television link less stressful for children. We believe that that is the best way to secure practical improvements for children—not, I regret, the approach reflected in the new clauses.

Mr. Michael: We are rather disappointed in the Minister's response. He does not appreciate what is happening in practice, the trauma involved for children and the scandalously low levels of prosecution and conviction. All that makes it necessary to change the procedures governing how children should be dealt with.
I should like to point out to the House that before the Bill went into Committee, I asked the Minister of State whether the Government would be sympathetic to using the Bill to change the current procedure for the prosecution of child sex abuse cases. Arrangements are still extremely unsatisfactory, despite the improvement that has been made largely through the efforts of Opposition and Conservative Back Benchers rather than through the initiatives of Ministers. That is extremely disappointing.
The Minister of State responded to my letter by saying that the Government would pursue practical improvements to the present arrangements and consult widely with all interested groups. That assurance has been repeated by the Minister in response to the debate. Unfortunately, his letter added:
But we do not envisage making further amendments to the Bill on this subject.
We pressed him further about that in Committee, and suggested further amendments. A useful debate took place, but the Government did not accept our argument. In Committee, we appealed to the Minister to reconsider whether improvements could be made on Report—today. We took on board the technical difficulties in our new clauses in order to allow a debate to take place in Committee. We tried to be as mild as possible in our support of such measures, because, rather than tabling official Opposition amendments, we stood back because we felt it was better for the cross-party concern in the House to be reflected in amendments tabled by Back Benchers.
It must therefore be particularly disappointing to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) that the Government have not accepted their proposals. I should like to pay tribute to the unflagging determination with which my hon. Friend has pursued this issue, year after year, despite discouragement, and despite the fact that a great deal of


effort seems to be needed for the odd small step forward to be taken. I am certain that her efforts on behalf of vulnerable and damaged children will be rewarded in the end. Frankly, the Government should be taking the lead.
It is a scandal that such a small proportion of offences end up with convictions. It is disappointing that Ministers have not accepted our suggestion that the vast resources of the Home Office should be used to introduce relevant measures on Report to alleviate the traumatic experiences currently suffered in the courts by youngsters who have already been traumatised by events that we all agree are horrendous to them and unacceptable to society.
I am disappointed that the Minister is unable to offer support for the new clause, but I am in a position to offer Labour party support for the cross-party measures that have been proposed.

Mrs. Golding: I am extremely disappointed that the Minister has refused to do anything further to help children. He need only speak to people who must deal with traumatised children to realise how much we need to implement all the Pigot recommendations. I am sorry that, in the dying months of the Government, they have not sought to accept it in full. I assure him that an incoming Labour Government will do so.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 186, Noes 238.

Division No. 143]
[5.57 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Coffey, Ms Ann


Ainger, Nick
Connarty, Michael


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Allen, Graham
Corston, Jean


Alton, David
Cox, Tom


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Ashton, Joe
Darling, Alistair


Austin-Walker, John
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)


Barnes, Harry
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barron, Kevin
Denham, John


Battle, John
Dewar, Donald


Bayley, Hugh
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Dowd, Jim


Beggs, Roy
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bell, Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Etherington, Bill


Bennett, Andrew F
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Betts, Clive
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Blunkett, David
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bradley, Keith
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fraser, John


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Fyfe, Maria


Burden, Richard
Galbraith, Sam


Byers, Stephen
Gapes, Mike


Caborn, Richard
George, Bruce


Callaghan, Jim
Gerrard, Neil


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Graham, Thomas


Campbell-Savours, D N
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hall, Mike


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug





Heppell, John
Olner, Bill


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hinchliffe, David
Pearson, Ian


Hoey, Kate
Pendry, Tom


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hutton, John
Reid, Dr John


Illsley, Eric
Rendel, David


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rogers, Allan


Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)
Rooker, Jeff


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rowlands, Ted


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Short, Clare


Jowell, Tessa
Simpson, Alan


Keen, Alan
Skinner, Dennis


Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)
Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Khabra, Piara S
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kirkwood, Archy
Soley, Clive


Liddell, Mrs Helen
Spearing, Nigel


Livingstone, Ken
Spellar, John


LIwyd, Elfyn
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerry


McAvoy, Thomas
Stevenson, George


McCartney, Ian
Stott, Roger


Macdonald, Calum
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


McLeish, Henry
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madden, Max
Timms, Stephen


Maginnis, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Mahon, Alice
Touhig, Don


Mandelson, Peter
Trickett, Jon


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tyler, Paul


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Martlew, Eric
Wallace, James


Michael, Alun
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Wigley, Dafydd


Milburn, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wise, Audrey


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Mowlam, Marjorie



Mudie, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mullin, Chris
Mr. David Clelland and Mr. Joe Benton.


Murphy, Paul





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Boswell, Tim


Alexander, Richard
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bowis, John


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Brandreth, Gyles


Amess, David
Brazier, Julian


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bright, Sir Graham


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Browning, Mrs Angela


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Budgen, Nicholas


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Burns, Simon


Bates, Michael
Burt, Alistair


Batiste, Spencer
Butcher, John


Bellingham, Henry
Butler, Peter


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carrington, Matthew


Body, Sir Richard
Carttiss, Michael






Cash, William
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clappison, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Key, Robert


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Kirkhope, Timothy


Coe, Sebastian
Knapman, Roger


Congdon, David
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Conway, Derek
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, Sir David


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Couchman, James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cran, James
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Legg, Barry


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark


Day, Stephen
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lidington, David


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lord, Michael


Dover, Den
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Duncan, Alan
MacKay, Andrew


Duncan Smith, Iain
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Dunn, Bob
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
Madel, Sir David


Eggar, Rt Hon Tim
Maitland, Lady Olga


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Malone, Gerald


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mans, Keith


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Marland, Paul


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Evennett, David
Merchant, Piers


Fabricant, Michael
Mills, Iain


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Fishburn, Dudley
Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)


Forman, Nigel
Moate, Sir Roger


Forth, Eric
Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector


Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


French, Douglas
Needham, Rt Hon Richard


Fry, Sir Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Gale, Roger 
Neubert, Sir Michael


Gardiner, Sir George
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Garnier, Edward
Nicholls, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gillan, Cheryl
Norris, Steve


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Oppenheim, Phillip


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Ottaway, Richard


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Page, Richard


Gorst, Sir John
Paice, James


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Patnick, Sir Irvine


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hampson, Dr Keith
Pawsey, James


Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hannam, Sir John
Pickles, Eric


Hargreaves, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Haselhurst, Sir Alan
Powell, William (Corby)


Hawkins, Nick
Rathbone, Tim


Hawksley, Warren
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Heald, Oliver
Richards, Rod


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robathan, Andrew


Horam, John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Sackville, Tom


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensboume)
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Hunter, Andrew
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jack, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Jenkin, Bernard
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Jessel, Toby
Shersby, Sir Michael





Skeet, Sir Trevor
Tredinnick, David


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Trotter, Neville


Speed, Sir Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Spencer, Sir Derek
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Viggers, Peter


Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Spink, Dr Robert
Walden, George


Sproat, Iain
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Watts, John


Stephen, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Stern, Michael
Whittingdale, John


Stewart, Allan
Widdecombe, Ann


Streeter Gary
Willetts, David



Wilshire, David


Sweeney, Walter
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Sykes, John
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim 


Temple-Morris, Peter
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Thomason, Roy



Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Dr. Liam Fox.


Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)



Tracey, Richard

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 11

EVIDENCE OF MULTIPLE SEXUAL OFFENCES

'.—(1) Where an indictment alleges more than one sexual offence against the same defendant the offences shall be tried together unless the defendant satisfies the judge that it would be unfairly prejudicial to do so.

(2) Section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 shall have no application to a sexual offence committed after this section comes into effect.'.—[Ms Jowell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Ms Tessa Jowell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss also the following: New clause 12—Irrelevant questioning about the victim's past sexual history—
'.—In section 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 the following subsections shall be substituted for subsections (1) and (2)—
(1) If at a trial any person is for the time being charged with a sexual offence to which he pleads not guilty, then except with the leave of the judge, no evidence and no question in cross-examination shall be adduced or asked at the trial, by or on behalf of any defendant at the trial, about any sexual experience of a complainant with a person other than that defendant.
(2) The judge shall not give leave in pursuance of the preceding subsection for any evidence or question except on an application to him made in the absence of the jury by or on behalf of a defendant; and on such an application the judge shall give leave if and only if he is satisfied that—

(a) it is evidence—

(i) of sexual experience or sexual activity taken part in by the complainant at or about the time of the time of the commission of the alleged sexual offence; and
(ii) of events which are alleged to form part of a connected series of circumstances in which the alleged sexual offence was committed; or


(b)(i) the accused person is alleged to have had sexual intercourse with the complainant and the accused person does not concede the sexual intercourse alleged; and

(ii) it is evidence relevant to whether the presence of semen, pregnancy, disease or injury is attributable to the sexual intercourse alleged; or
(c) it is evidence relevant to whether at the time of the alleged sexual offence there was present in the complainant a disease which at any relevant time was absent in the accused person; or
(d) it is evidence relevant to whether the allegation that the sexual offence was committed by the accused person was first made following a realisation or discovery of the presence of pregnancy or disease in the complainant (being a realisation or discovery which took place after the commission of the alleged sexual offence); or
(e) it is evidence tending to show that the complainant has, at a different time, made another allegation of a sexual offence which the complainant has subsequently withdrawn, admitted was false or which was unsubstantiated; or
(f) where it has been disclosed or implied in the case for the prosecution against the accused person that the complainant has or may have—

(i) had sexual experience, or lack of sexual experience of a general or specified nature; or
(ii) taken part or not taken part in sexual activity of a general or specified nature; and
(iii) the accused person might be unfairly prejudiced if the complainant could not be cross-examined by or on behalf of the accused person in relation to the disclosure or implication.
(2A) The judge shall not give leave under paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (2) above unless he is satisfied that it would be unfair to that defendant to refuse to allow the evidence to be adduced or the question or questions to be asked.
(2B) Where a judge has given leave in accordance with this section for evidence to be adduced or for a question or questions to be asked he shall record or cause to be recorded in writing the nature and scope of the evidence which may be adduced and the question or questions which may be asked and he shall further record or cause to be recorded in writing his reasons for giving leave.
(2C) In considering the nature and scope of the evidence which may be adduced and the question or questions which may be asked the judge shall take into account any distress, humiliation or embarrassment which the complainant might suffer as a result.".'.
New clause 13—Trial judge warnings on delays in reporting sexual offences—
'. —Where on the trial of a person for a sexual offence evidence is given either by the prosecution or the defence or a question is asked of a witness which tends to suggest an absence of complaint in respect of the commission of the alleged offence by the person upon whom the offence is alleged to have been committed or to suggest delay by that person in making any such complaint, the trial judge shall—
(a) give a warning to the jury to the effect that absence of complaint or delay in complaining does not necessarily indicate that the allegation that the offence was committed was false; and
(b) inform the jury that there may be good reasons why a victim of a sexual offence may delay in making, or may refrain from making, a complaint about the offence.'.

Ms Jowell: The new clauses are entirely consistent with the purposes of the Bill as set out by the Home Secretary when the legislation was published last November. The Government said that their aim was to ensure that

the guilty are convicted while continuing to protect the innocent through detailed measures to improve the administration of justice".
The Home Secretary added:
The criminal justice system should not be a legal maze which allows too many guilty people to walk free. The Bill will also help to reduce trauma and stress on victims".
The three new clauses introduced by the Labour party today are designed to ensure that the victims of rape and sexual assault receive fair, sensitive and humane treatment at the hands of the legal service and to help to reduce the intolerable trauma and stress that often accompanies the experience of becoming a complainant in a case. They also seek to ensure that serial rapists receive the punishment that they deserve and do not walk free only to assault again.
The purpose of any justice system must be to ensure that the innocent go free and that the guilty are convicted. With the conviction rate for rape at less than 9 per cent.— unchanged since 1985—no one can believe that 90 per cent. of women who make a complaint to the police alleging rape are making it up. The new clauses seek to address those issues. They represent small but important steps in a long process of rebuilding the confidence of victims of rape and sexual assault in the criminal justice system.
In recent weeks I have received many letters from women which give vivid glimpses of their damaged self-confidence. Women's self-confidence is damaged initially by the assault and then damaged further by the legal processes that follow, or by their encounter with them. I received a letter from a woman in Liverpool who was raped when she was 10. She summed up the feelings expressed by many. She wrote:
People should remember that we have already been through a degrading act when we are raped and have to relive it when we are in court. We are the victims not the perpetrators. A woman does not ask for this invasion by what she wears or how she talks. I only hope that my daughter sees the day when she can be proud of the justice system and of the help it gives to rape victims".
Recent improvements in the way that the police deal with women who are the victims of rape and sexual assault are welcome. However, according to Commander Tom Williamson, who chairs the Metropolitan police's sexual offences steering committee, the benefits of those improvements have been undermined by the treatment of victims in court. At a conference last year, he said:
Just because a victim is giving evidence about a rape it should not entitle a barrister to rape them metaphorically a second time".
Commander Williamson said that the prospect of that ordeal still prevents many victims from coming forward. He added:
A consequence of this lack of confidence in the criminal justice system is the loss of criminal intelligence, with the modus operandi in a series of crimes not being identified and rapists not being brought to justice".
Twenty years ago, the Heilbron report found that the intrusive and irrelevant questioning of rape victims by defence lawyers was in effect putting the woman on trial. That is still true today. A 17-year-old rape victim remarked after the trial and conviction of her rapist:
no woman in her right mind would bring a case".
Our new clauses reassert the Heilbron report's unarguable and obvious principle which should not need to be restated: a woman's sexual experiences with partners of her choice in no way indicate a general willingness to


consent to sex with anyone. Women do not give consent to sex with general categories of men; nor do they give general consent to intercourse in particular places. Consent is granted or declined only on an individual and private basis.
Our proposals also address the alarming decline in the conviction rate for rape offences in recent years. In 1980, 37 per cent. of rape offences reported to the police resulted in a conviction. By 1994, the figure had fallen to 8.6 per cent. Since the Crown Prosecution Service was established, the percentage of cases that have not proceeded to a Crown court committal has trebled. We share the Home Secretary's aspiration that:
The criminal justice system should not be a legal maze which allows too many guilty people to walk free".
Today we will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues the opportunity to put that principle and that aspiration into practice.
I shall summarise briefly the essence of the three new clauses. The first concerns evidence of multiple sex offences. The new clause tackles judges' evident reluctance to hear together the separate sexual offences of which a defendant may stand accused. There is alarming evidence to show that such reluctance is resulting in men who are accused of multiple rapes against different women going free or receiving lighter sentences that do not match the severity of their crimes. Trial judges' readiness to hear cases separately denies juries crucial information about the extent of the allegations made against some serial rapists. The new clause tightens the current rules on multiple sex offence charges and makes it clear that the presumption for the trial judge should be that such cases are tried together.
New clause 12 deals with irrelevant questioning about a victim's past sexual history. The new clause is necessary because of the evident failure of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976, which gives judges the discretion to limit questions about the complainant's sexual history. Research conducted by Zhusanna Adler at the Old Bailey in the early 1980s found that not only was leave given to the defence to ask about sexual history in more than 70 per cent. of cases when it was requested, but the defence counsel frequently did not bother to ask for leave and launched into cross-examination on sexual history without any objection from the judge or from the prosecution. In a further study on Court of Appeal rulings about sexual history evidence in England and Wales, Professor Jennifer Temkin argued:
The willingness of the Court of Appeal to see a wide range of evidence as relevant to consent means that trial judges who refuse to allow in sexual history evidence do so at some considerable risk of a quashed conviction on appeal. It will be an inept defence counsel who is unable by some means or other successfully to apply under Section 2".
Professor Sue Lees, who has conducted landmark studies in this area, monitored all contested rape trials at the Old Bailey over a four-month period in summer 1993. She found that judges allowed questions about victims' past sexual histories in seven out of 10 rape trials. She has shown how judges continue to give defending barristers free rein to ask the most intrusive and needlessly distressing questions of women who have been the victims of rape.
Barristers claim that such questions are vital in order to protect the defendant from false allegations. It is true that such questioning is needed on some occasions, and our new clause allows for it in those circumstances. However, a Scottish Office survey of defence barristers got closer to the truth. Many admitted that they used such questions to:
create a smokescreen of immorality around the girl.
In her book "Carnal Knowledge: Rape on Trial", Professor Lees gives examples of questions that, according to the spirit of the Sexual Offences Act 1976, should not have been allowed. In one case, the complainant was asked:
Before this incident on 5 February, when was the last time that you had sexual intercourse with anyone?
On another occasion, a complainant was asked:
Have you had sex with a man other than the defendant?
Often, the questions are more oblique. Questions such as "What kind of material is your underwear made of?" or "Would you agree that it's a dressy dress?" are designed to construct the "smokescreen of immorality" through insinuation and innuendo. Sue Lees has said:
In the trial transcripts I examined I found that the perfectly normal behaviour of young women is presented as evidence that they provoked the man's attack or asked for it.
The new clause revises sections 1 and 2 of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976 to provide important new protections from unjust, irrelevant and intrusive questioning of rape and sexual assault victims. The proposals are based on the tried and tested formula of the 1981 New South Wales Act. The proposals set out in the new clause would establish for the first time clear and specific circumstances in which a judge may allow any questioning about the victim's sexual history. It requires the prosecution to seek permission to ask any such questions away from the jury, and requires the judge to state clearly in writing the questions that may be asked, and his reasons for giving such leave.
The new clause would require the judge, in considering any request from the prosecution, to take clearly into account any distress, humiliation or embarrassment that the questioning might cause the victim. The proposals should also be linked to improved training for judges when handling rape cases, and to a more determined effort than we have seen to increase the number of women sitting as judges.
New clause 13 refers to delays in reporting offences. The aim of the new clause is to ensure that the victims of sexual crime receive fair treatment at the hands of the courts. Victims of sexual offences frequently delay reporting the offence to the police, and they often have a number of good reasons for doing so. Those reasons might include their immediate distress and the fact that they were only urged to report the offence when they talked to a friend.
Some victims are prevented from reporting an offence by a sense of shame; others are simply too embarrassed or too fearful of the effects of a complaint on their families or friends. While people in the criminal justice service may be aware of those good reasons, there is evidence that juries are often misled about the significance of any such delay. We therefore propose to require trial judges to inform juries in all sexual offences trials that there may be good reasons why a victim may delay reporting an offence, so that juries do not draw unwarranted conclusions from any delay.
The three measures that we have placed before the House today are small steps to end some of the injustices experienced by victims of rape and sexual assault. They are a start, and are entirely in keeping with the spirit and intended purpose of the legislation. They are consistent with the Bill's aims of ensuring that the guilty are convicted while continuing to protect the innocent. and of offering detailed measures to improve the administration of justice.
I shall finish with the words of a woman who, having experienced rape, wrote to me recently. She said:
I hope I can see the day when we can cheer the support of the courts instead of weep.
The Government have betrayed the victims of rape and sexual assault. Today the Labour party is giving the Government the opportunity to repair some of that damage.

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms Jowell) made an interesting speech, but I am sorry that she spoilt it at the end with her ridiculous jibe. This Government introduced, in the Criminal Justice Act 1988, powers to increase the maximum penalty for cruelty to children—something that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) conveniently forgets when she trumpets the work that she is now doing for children.
The Government increased the penalty from two years to 10, and the Labour party voted against it. That happened on 18 January 1988, when, under the Criminal Justice Act, we increased the maximum penalty for cruelty to children to 10 years' imprisonment. I accept that the hon. Member for Dulwich was not in the House then, but other hon. Members were. I invite Opposition Members to check Hansard of 18 January 1988, when they will see that the Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Act.
The Government increased the maximum penalty for dealing in hard drugs to life imprisonment. We increased the maximum penalty for taking a gun to a crime to life imprisonment. We gave the Attorney-General the right to appeal against lenient sentences, including lenient rape sentences, and the Labour party voted against it. I was not going to recite that list, Mr. Deputy `Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would have welcomed it if the Minister had not done so, as the list has nothing to do with the new clause.

Mr. Maclean: I am sorry to have strayed into that subject, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the hon. Member for Dulwich should not have said that the Government betrayed rape victims. The Government made all the changes in the 1980s to make life easier for rape victims. They strengthened the police; they dramatically increased their numbers; they encouraged the police to introduce rape suites to help rape victims; they introduced the DNA national database—the first in the world. The hon. Lady should get her facts straight before making such silly jibes.
The new clauses deserve to be considered seriously, as they raise complex issues about the admissibility of evidence in sexual offences cases. I think that we would all agree that there is something particularly abhorrent about such crimes, and we are all aware of their dramatic

effect on the victims. The Government have introduced a range of measures to strengthen the powers of the police and the courts to prosecute those who commit such crimes. The national DNA database provides the police with a valuable new weapon to investigate such crimes.
We have removed the requirement for juries to be warned about convicting on the uncorroborated evidence of the victim of a sexual offence. We have announced tough new proposals for automatic life sentences for offenders who are convicted for a second time of a serious violent or sex offence unless there are genuinely exceptional circumstances. The Opposition have been in a quandary over our proposals for automatic life sentences and minimum mandatory sentences; they are not sure whether or not to support them.
The nature of sexual offences and the frequent lack of corroborating evidence makes it particularly difficult to prosecute successfully. There has been a reduction in the number of convictions, as a proportion both of the number of offences recorded and of the number of prosecutions. That is a matter of concern, but it is the product of a wide range of factors.
Recent research has suggested the need for a larger-scale study to ensure that we properly understand the problems and how best to tackle them. We intend to conduct such research. Despite the understandable desire to make it easier to secure convictions, it is essential to maintain a proper balance—to preserve the defendant's right to a fair trial, and to ensure that the case against the criminal is properly tested.
The Government fully understand the concerns that have prompted the new clauses, but we are not convinced that they have been subjected to the rigorous examination necessary before changes can be made to such a complex and sensitive area of law. I shall consider first new clause 11. Often, those responsible for crimes of a sexual nature are known—or thought—to have committed other similar offences. I agree that it is important that juries should have the opportunity to hear that that has been the case where the judge believes it is in the interests of justice to do so.
It is worth correcting any misconception that sexual offences cannot be tried together. Under the 1971 indictment rules, charges for offences may already be joined in the same indictment. The particular nature of sexual offences and the frequent lack of corroborating evidence require a slightly more cautious approach to whether cases can be tried on the same indictment. A jury may find it more difficult to consider each charge separately, as they may be influenced, consciously or unconsciously, by the extent and nature of the charges against the defendant.
The Indictments Act 1915, to which the new clause refers, gives the trial judge discretion to decide whether, on the particular facts before him, it would be appropriate for the charges to be tried together or severed. Before the judge can do that, it will first be for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide how the indictment against the accused is prepared.
The Crown Prosecution Service, quite rightly, will want to take a view on how best to prosecute an individual who is to be charged with more than one sexual offence when there are similarities between his crimes. That is a matter to which the CPS already attaches great importance and charges are joined whenever it seems right to do so. So


new clause 11 would not automatically mean that all charges against an accused would be heard at the same time if the CPS considered that the public interest, including that of the victims, is better served by separate prosecutions.
6.30 pm
In our view, a decision on severing an indictment remains an important judgment, which the trial judge is best placed to make based on all the circumstances of the case before him. He has the ability to consider a wide range of criteria before making his decision, which the new clause would remove.
That ability was reinforced in a recent ruling by the House of Lords in a case involving multiple sexual offences against different victims. The ruling in Regina v. Christou reinforced the right of the courts to try cases together even when the evidence is not corroborative, and has provided useful guidance on the factors that trial judges should take into account when making such decisions.
The new clause is unsound in two respects. First, it is seriously defective because it would disapply section 5 of the Indictments Act 1915 altogether in relation to sexual offences. Among other things, section 5 allows the courts to order the amendment of defective indictments. Those might include the fact that the trial would become too unwieldy if all the charges were tried together. The court's powers in respect of trying cases together are to be found in section 5(3) rather than section 5 as a whole.
The second and more serious flaw is that new clause 11 would unnecessarily restrict the discretionary powers of judges to rule on the extent of indictments that come before them. It would do this by requiring that decisions were made on the grounds of prejudice alone and can only be made at the request of the defence. Presently, the judge can act on his own initiative, and may take account not only of whether the indictment is prejudicial but of other important issues, such as the impact on victims of ordering two or more trials. We believe that judges should retain their existing discretion to decide upon those important matters.
The question that faces us on new clause 12 is whether it would improve the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976. I believe that it is clear that section 2 of that Act represents an additional hurdle to be cleared after common-law tests of relevance have been met, and that its main purpose—the prevention of mud-slinging attacks on the complainant's reputation—is plain.
The most difficult issue in practice, however, is the degree to which sexual history may be relevant to the issue of consent, and it is on that question that the greatest scope for dispute over individual judicial decisions arises. The Court of Appeal has in a number of cases, and notably in Regina v. Viola in 1982, provided guidance on how the existing provisions should be applied. The Court of Appeal said that the general aim should be to exclude questioning relating to the credit of the complainant but generally to admit that which is relevant to an issue in the trial.
New clause 12 seeks to prevent irrelevant questioning about a victim's previous sexual history by defining the circumstances in which the judge may exercise his

discretion. It would also extend that provision to victims of all sexual offences. Cross-examination about previous sexual experience is more likely to be an issue in rape cases—hence the need for the special provisions in the 1976 Act. It is not clear that a major extension of the present situation to all sexual offences is justified.
Section 2 of the 1976 Act is a straightforward provision that allows a proper balance to be struck between giving the complainant some protection from oppressive and irrelevant questioning, while safeguarding the defendant's right to a fair trial.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order,Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to raise an issue of contempt, but it is a contempt of the House to misrepresent proceedings of the House of Commons. You will have heard the Minister tell the House that, on 18 January 1988, Labour Members of Parliament voted against increasing penalties during proceedings on the Criminal Justice Act 1988.
I have checked the Hansard, and found that Labour Members of Parliament did no such thing. They voted against the Second Reading of that Act on the basis that it had implications for civil liberties that arose out of changes to extradition, jury selection and remand and sentencing. We voted against Second Reading, and we have been misrepresented during this debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That point can be made in debate; it is certainly not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Maclean: I am glad to hear those confessions and admissions. Perhaps the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) will take the time to read the contents of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He will find that the Labour party voted against penalties to increase sentences for people who are cruel to children and for drug dealers.
It is no wonder the Labour party does not like being reminded about that. Labour Members can come up with any excuse they like now, but they voted against that Act, lock, stock and barrel. They now have a guilty conscience about it, and I suspect that that is why we have seen all these spurious and bogus new clauses, which are 10 years late. The Labour party is trying to say that it is sorry about the mistakes of 1980s, and that it wants to make up for them. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is my near neighbour, for his confession—he is "one sinner that repenteth".
I turn now to new clause 13, which raises complex issues about the law on evidence—I do not know of any issues about the law of evidence that are not complex— and, in particular, what evidence may be given to explain why a complaint was not made or was delayed.
Of course the Government share the concern that juries should be able to make a proper assessment of the value of evidence on such matters; that is why, last year, we removed the automatic warning that juries were given that the evidence of one woman alone had to be treated with a certain circumspection. It was not right to retain that warning, but I am not convinced that it is right to create a new warning for the jury.
The present position is that, if evidence is admitted that a victim has made no complaint—or, more likely, that the complaint was substantially delayed—the court may hear


evidence to explain why the alleged victim did not complain. That is the correct way to proceed. The court is then able to hear the evidence relevant to the circumstances of the case, which may explain the reasons for the delay. There may be good evidential reasons why the victim did not come forward immediately to report a sexual attack, and the court should be told those reasons and the jury should take them into account.
In other cases, the evidence may not be so strong. In some cases, the absence of complaint may be crucial to the case, and a warning in the terms proposed would be inappropriate. A requirement to give the same warning regardless of the circumstances of the case and the quality of the evidence explaining any delay would confuse the issues and make the task of the judge and the jury more difficult.
The use of a warning should therefore be considered in the context of the rules governing the evidence that may be admitted to refute any allegation of the kind mentioned in new clause 13. It may, for example, be possible for previous consistent statements to be produced in evidence to support the allegation made by the victim.
That is a complex aspect of the law on hearsay and related topics, which the Law Commission is at present considering. Its report is expected later this year. It is likely to include proposals about the extent to which previous consistent statements should be admissible as evidence of the truth, and not merely, as at present, the credibility of the witness. It is also likely to address the question whether previous consistent statements should be admissible in cases other than sexual offences, in which physical injury might also have been inflicted.
Those are important issues that bear directly on whether there should be a statutory warning, and, if so, what it should be. It would, in our view, be wrong to legislate on that complex area of the law without having the benefit of the Law Commission's work. For those reasons, the Government cannot support new clause 13.
I am sorry that I have spoken at length on new clauses 11, 12 and 13, but they raise important and complex issues. We shall give further consideration to changes in the law in the light of the Law Commission's current work and the research that we intend to conduct into attrition rates in sexual offence cases, but we are unable at present to support the new clauses.

Ms: The length of the Minister's speech has served as an effective smokescreen for the fact that he has nothing to say. His lengthy diatribe about the defective nature of the new clauses is simply a way to sidestep the real issues that they raise.
Those of us who read our copy of The Independent this morning have been led to believe that next week the Government are holding their law and order week in order to regain the initiative on law and order from the shadow Home Secretary and the Labour party. There is a growing conviction across the country that it is the Labour party that understands people's fears about crime, and that it is Labour which brings forward specific and practical proposals, which the Government then reject out of hand.
The Government's response to the new clause will be received by women across the country for what it represents: indifference, and a refusal to do anything about one of the most serious problems besetting women in the criminal justice system.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 190, Noes 234.

Division No. 144]
[6.42 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
George, Bruce


Ainger, Nick
Gerrard, Neil


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Godsiff, Roger


Allen, Graham
Golding, Mrs Llin


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Graham, Thomas


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Ashton, Joe
Grocott, Bruce


Austin-Walker, John
Hain, Peter


Barnes, Harry
Hall, Mike


Battle, John
Harvey, Nick


Bayley, Hugh
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Beckett, Rt Hon Margaret
Heppell, John


Beggs, Roy
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Bell, Stuart
Hinchliffe, David


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoey, Kate


Bennett, Andrew F
Hoon, Geoffrey


Benton, Joe
Howarth, George (Knowsley North)


Bermingham, Gerald
Howells, Dr Kim (Pontypridd)


Berry, Roger
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Betts, Clive
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Blair, Rt Hon Tony
Hutton, John


Blunkett, David
Illsley, Eric


Boateng, Paul
Ingram, Adam


Bradley, Keith
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Brown, N (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Burden, Richard
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Byers, Stephen
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Callaghan, Jim
Jowell, Tessa


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Keen, Alan


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Kennedy, Jane (L'pool Br'dg'n)


Campbell-Savours, D N
Khabra, Piara S


Canavan, Dennis
Kilfoyle, Peter


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Kirkwood, Archy


Clapham, Michael
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Llwyd, Elfyn


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
McAllion, John


Clelland, David
McAvoy, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Ian


Coffey, Ann
Macdonald, Calum


Connarty, Michael
McKelvey, William


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McNamara, Kevin


Corston, Jean
McWilliam, John


Cox, Tom
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Maginnis, Ken


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Mahon, Alice


Darling, Alistair
Mandelson, Peter


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Denham, John
Martlew, Eric


Dewar, Donald
Maxton, John


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Dowd, Jim
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Etherington, Bill
Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fatchett, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Faulds, Andrew
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)
Mudie, George


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
Murphy, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Galbraith, Sam
Olner, Bill


Gapes, Mike
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley






Pearson, Ian
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Pendry, Tom
Straw, Jack


Pope, Greg
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Timms, Stephen


Purchase, Ken
Tipping, Paddy


Reid, Dr John
Touhig, Don


Rendel, David
Trickett, Jon


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Trimble, David


Rogers, Allan
Turner, Dennis


Rooker, Jeff
Tyler, Paul


Rooney, Terry
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wallace, James


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Andrew


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wicks, Malcolm


Simpson, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Skinner, Dennis
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Smith, Chris (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Audrey


Spellar, John
Worthington, Tony


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)



Steinberg, Gerry
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stevenson, George
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm and Mr.John Owen Jones.


Stott, Roger





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Cran, James


Aitken, Rt Hon Jonathan
Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)


Alexander, Richard
Davies, Quentin (Starnford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Day, Stephen


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Amess, David
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Dover, Den


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Duncan, Alan


Baker, Rt Hon Kenneth (Mole V)
Duncan Smith, Iain


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Dunn, Bob


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Eggar, Rt Hon Tim


Bates, Michael
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bellingham, Henry
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Bendall, Vivian
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Evennett, David


Body, Sir Richard
Faber, David


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fabricant, Michael


Boswell, Tim
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bowis, John
Fishburn, Dudley


Brandreth, Gyles
Forman, Nigel


Brazier, Julian
Forth, Eric


Bright, Sir Graham 
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Browning, Mrs Angela
French, Douglas


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Fry, Sir Peter


Burns, Simon
Gale, Roger


Burt, Alistair
Gardiner, Sir George


Butcher, John
Garnier, Edward


Butterfill, John
Gillan, Cheryl


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Carttiss, Michael
Gorst, Sir John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Clappison, James
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Coe, Sebastian
Hampson, Dr Keith


Congdon, David
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Conway, Derek
Hannam, Sir John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Haselhurst, Sir Alan


Couchman, James
Hawkins, Nick





Hawksley, Warren
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Hayes, Jerry
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Heald, Oliver
Richards, Rod


Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David
Riddick, Graham


Hendry, Charles
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Robathan, Andrew 


Horam, John
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Sackville, Tom


Hunter, Andrew
Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Jenkin, Bernard
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Jessel, Toby
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Shersby, Sir Michael


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sims, Roger


Key, Robert
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Kirkhope, Timothy
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)
Speed, Sir Keith


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Spencer, Sir Derek


Knox, Sir David
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spink, Dr Robert


Lawrence, Sir Ivan
Sproat, Iain


Legg, Barry
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Leigh, Edward
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark
Steen, Anthony


Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)
Stephen, Michael


Lidington, David
Stern, Michael


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stewart, Allan


Lord, Michael
Streeter, Gary


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sweeney, Walter


MacKay, Andrew
Sykes, John


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Tapsell, Sir Peter


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Madel, Sir David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Temple-Morris, Peter


Malone, Gerald
Thomason, Roy


Mans, Keith
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Marland, Paul



Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Thurnham, Peter


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Merchant, Piers
Tracey, Richard


Mills, Iain
Tredinnick, David



Trotter,Neville


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moate, Sir Roger
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walden, George


Needham, Rt Hon Richard
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Waterson, Nigel


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wells, Bowen


Norris, Steve
Whittingdale, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Widdecombe, Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Willetts, David


Ottaway, Richard
Wilshire, David


Page, Richard
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Paice, James
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Wolfson, Mark


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wood, Timothy


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Yeo, Tim


Pawsey, James
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Pickles, Eric
Tellers for the Noes:


Porter, David (Waveney)
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin and Mr. Roger Knapman.


Powell, William (Corby)



Rathbone, Tim

Question accordingly negatived.

New clause 14

PENALTY FOR FAILURE TO DISCLOSE

'. —(1) A failure by any individual or organisation to disclose material required to be disclosed to the prosecutor under the provisions of this Act shall be an offence.

(2) An offence under subsection (1) may be punished on conviction on indictment by imprisonment for five years or a fine, or on summary conviction by imprisonment for six months or a fine at level 5 on the standard scale.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 14 introduces a penalty for failure to disclose information. It arises from the concern that is felt in many places that the legislation as it stands is balanced in terms of obligations, which is why we have supported it and the principles that it seeks to introduce, but that there is no equivalent penalty for the failure to disclose by the police or the prosecutor. It is for that reason that we have tabled the new clause.
The new clause makes it clear that
A failure by any individual or organisation to disclose material required to be disclosed to the prosecutor under the provisions of this Act shall be an offence.
It arises from discussion in Committee when, in response to the debate, the Solicitor-General suggested that, as far as prosecutors are concerned, the professional onus and requirements placed upon them would give a mechanism to deal with any breach.
It was pointed out during the course of that debate, however, that there is no similar onus and no penalty in respect of a failure to disclose by the police to the prosecutor. It was also pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) that a number of miscarriages of justice had arisen precisely from failure to disclose by the police at an appropriate stage.
Now that we are giving matters much greater clarity in the Bill and in the code of conduct that will follow it, it is surely appropriate that in the background there should be the possibility of punishment, which surely concentrates minds when it comes to ensuring that the letter of the law is observed.
I emphasise that the new clause does not mean that an inappropriate or excessive punishment would follow an accidental breach of the requirement. I took advice in advance of today's debate and in preparing the wording of the new clause and the advice was to the effect that accidental failure or a minor sin of omission could be dealt with by no prosecution taking place. However, there are occasions, and there have been events in the past, when an omission or a failure to provide information has had a major impact, and when it has been serious and deliberate. Such an event requires the new clause to be added to the Bill.
The situation for the prosecutor is, in the view of the Solicitor-General, already covered in the legislation. The Opposition were not entirely satisfied by that, but we accept that the Solicitor-General made a strong case in Committee. However, there is a gap with regard to the investigator.
It is for those reasons that we seek to add the new clause to the Bill. In Committee, the Solicitor-General referred to professional discipline and the views that can

be expressed by the jury. But they can be expressed only if matters come to light in a way that enables a jury to make such an observation. The question is whether there is a suitable mechanism to deal with a failure to disclose in the manner described in the new clause. The Opposition believe that it would fill a gap and ensure a proper balance between the two sides involved in dealing with a case in the courts.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I support the new clause. Non-disclosure, deliberate or negligent, has been a feature of most of the major miscarriages of justice that have been proven during the past four or five years and of many of those that are alleged. One feature common to all such cases is that, even if those responsible for suppressing inconvenient information or evidence are caught red-handed, nothing ever happens to them. To my knowledge—I welcome correction— even though they have been caught red-handed and in some cases denounced by the judge, no prosecutor or police officer has suffered anything more than mild inconvenience. As a result, they do not have much incentive to ensure that all evidence that should be put before a court is put before it.
The new clause will provide them with an incentive. No one is suggesting that in cases of minor negligence some draconian penalty should be visited on those responsible. But where, as in the Guildford case and the Judith Ward case, for example, there was a deliberate suppression of evidence at a high level, in which a number of people connived, some of whom either were at the time or went on to become very distinguished, they should be aware that some penalty awaits them. That has not been the case in the past, but it must happen in the future if the legislation is to be taken seriously by those whose job it will be to implement it.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Derek Spencer): Without being disrespectful to the hon. Members for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who have just spoken, I can deal with the matter quite briefly.
In summary, the new clause is quite unnecessary, as a range of sanctions are already in place that are proportionate to the gravity of the failure to disclose. Let me explain. The objective, which I assume lies behind the proposal, of ensuring that the prosecutor has available all the necessary information is sensible, as the system will not work properly unless evidence is properly gathered by the police and they reveal it properly to prosecuting counsel in accordance with the regime set up by the Bill. Clearly, the police and other investigators must help the prosecutor if the disclosure system is to work.Inb
7 pm
The responsibilities of the police to retain, record and make available to the prosecutor relevant information obtained during an investigation will be set out in the code of practice, for which provision is made in clause 22, which is extensive and contains many paragraphs that deal with the duties of the police in relation to a wide variety of material. We are also amending the Bill to place a duty on the police to investigate all reasonable lines of inquiry, both those that point


towards the guilt of a defendant and those that point the other way. That mirrors best practice at the moment but it is a new step in terms of statute.
Sanctions already exist if there is a failure to meet responsibilities by law. I shall say briefly what they are: first, a deliberate failure by an investigator to disclose material could render him or her liable to prosecution for perverting or attempting to pervert the course of justice. If two or more are involved, the offence would be conspiracy. I am surprised that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South says that no more than slight inconvenience has been caused to those caught grievously—and dishonestly—failing in their duty to disclose. He must be familiar with the criminal proceedings that were taken against the police officers who inquired into the Birmingham Six and the Guildford cases, in which the officers were prosecuted and the due process of law took place.

Mr. Mullin: Will the Solicitor-General give way?

The Solicitor-General: My patience was taxed in Committee by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, but, notwithstanding that, I shall give way.

Mr. Mullin: I am very familiar with the two cases that the Solicitor-General just named, and I have rarely seen a more half-hearted attempt to prosecute those allegedly responsible for fraud and perjury on a vast scale. Can he name one example of any charges brought against the Crown prosecutor for deliberately suppressing inconvenient evidence?

The Solicitor-General: There has never been any evidence that counsel or any Crown prosecutor acted in a dishonest way. I am surprised at the selective way in which the hon. Gentleman addresses the problem. When he made this complaint in Committee, and repeated it just now, he overlooked the prosecution of the police officers in the Birmingham Six and Guildford cases. He casts aspersions, sometimes on named and unnamed prosecutors, and in Committee he went so far as to say:
I do not doubt that everyone intimately involved in those cases, including Lord Havers and the DPP, knew from the outset that they had got the wrong people once they had caught the right people, but they chose to rewrite the script to prevent that from coming out."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 21 May 1996; c. 137–138.]
I have to say that, as Lord Havers' former pupil in chambers and then his Parliamentary Private Secretary when he was Attorney-General, I repudiate entirely those allegations, which are not supported by a shred of evidence. Indeed, Sir John May's report, which was published in two stages, the second part in 1992, demonstrated quite clearly to anybody who was prepared to read it that the allegations that the hon. Gentleman just made were without foundation. I remember standing at the Dispatch Box shortly after the second report had been published and saying just that. I am deeply disappointed with the hon. Gentleman's approach to the problem.

Mr. Mullin: rose—

Mr. James Hill: Say it outside the House.

Mr. Mullin: I have done so, as it happens.
When members of the IRA unit captured at Balcombe street were arrested, they owned up in considerable detail to the Guildford and Woolwich bombings. They were interviewed by superintendent Peter Imbert, who told the Home Affairs Select Committee that the Director of Public Prosecutions was responsible for ensuring that the statements from the captured IRA people were not made available to the defence. I rest my case.

The Solicitor-General: This has all been investigated in the greatest detail by Sir John May, whose report is available for anybody who cares to read it. The hon. Gentleman talks about rewriting the script. When rewriting the script is discussed, he should own up to doing just that, because his account of these matters does not bear the most cursory examination.

Mr. Mullin: My track record is better than yours, judged by results.

The Solicitor-General: Let me proceed with something serious and not be distracted by such trivia.
The second possible sanction available if there has been a failure to disclose is disciplinary proceedings against the police. New disciplinary arrangements are currently being developed following the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994.
Thirdly, clause 25(4) requires the court to take into account, when determining any question arising in the proceedings, a failure by a police officer to comply with the code, or a failure of any other person charged with the duty of conducting an investigation to have regard to the code.
Fourthly, if new relevant information becomes available after conviction, it may form grounds for an appeal.
The new clause is defective because, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth observed, it contains no mental ingredient at all, in the sense that it just speaks about a failure to disclose. It does not say whether that failure is deliberate or reckless or whether there is any reasonable excuse. It says that the maximum penalty for that is five years imprisonment on indictment. But its deficiencies do not end there. I imagine that it is an example of the law of unintended effect. It is drafted so widely that it appears to take into account the defence as well as the prosecution. Accordingly, if there is a failure by the accused or his or her legal adviser to disclose, that might also be caught by the new offence. I doubt very much whether that is what the hon. Gentleman intends.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that I concentrated in Committee on the professional restraints on the Crown Prosecution Service and on counsel involved in the case. I did not concentrate on it; I referred to it, but on this occasion I do not think that it is necessary to repeat what I said in Committee. I invite the hon. Gentleman to reconsider the matter, and I hope that when he has done so he will agree that the new clause is unnecessary and withdraw it.

Mr. Michael: I have never heard such an inadequate response from a Minister. If the Solicitor-General's patience was taxed in Committee, he must suffer from patience deficiency syndrome. His patience should not


have been taxed in Committee because we tried to have a reasonable discussion there; he must be an extremely impatient man.
The Solicitor-General's response today has been complacent in the extreme and he does neither himself nor the legal system any benefit by it. It is a great pity that he has been distracted from whatever he would otherwise have been doing by being brought before the House for the trivial matter of trying to ensure that justice is conducted in such a way that the guilty are punished and the innocent walk free. The Solicitor-General has not enhanced his reputation by the way in which he has dealt with this debate.
I explained in my introduction, to which the Solicitor-General does not seem to have listened, that the case of someone who is acting inadvertently is not affected by a requirement of recklessness because there is no need for a prosecution to follow if there is an explanation of an accidental omission. The court would be able to take that fully into account and would not have to use the top end of the penalty scale if it was inappropriate to do so. It shows a lack of confidence in the courts to suggest that they would be constrained to act in a different way.
The Solicitor-General concentrated on the position of the lawyers in his response in Committee; that is not dealt with under the new clause. I am also surprised by his suggestion that the requirement of disclosure includes the defence because it is clear that the requirement is on
any individual or organisation to disclose material required to be disclosed to the prosecutor under the provisions of the Act.
That requirement is clear.
I am disappointed by the Solicitor-General's response; he has not engaged seriously with the serious issues before us. It is clear that he and the Government would vote against the new clause, so there is no point in taking up further time. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause—not because we have been wrong to raise the issue, but because there is no need to take up the time of the House following such an inadequate response.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 15

CODES OF CONDUCT (NON-POLICE INVESTIGATIONS)

'—(1) The Secretary of State may prepare a code or codes relating to the conduct by persons other than police officers of criminal investigations with a view to it being ascertained—

(a) whether a person should be charged with an offence; or
(b) whether a person charged with an offence is guilty of it.

(2) In preparing a code under subsection (1) the Secretary of State shall have regard to—

(a) the nature of the investigations conducted by the persons to whom the code applies; and
(b) the need to ensure that, so far as possible, persons other than police officers conduct investigations in the same manner as police officers.'.—[Mr. Michael.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Michael: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 73, in clause 24, page 17, line 18, after '22', insert

'or (Codes of Conduct (non-police investigations))'.
No. 74, in clause 25, page 17, line 33, after '(1)', insert
'If no relevant code prepared under section (Codes of Conduct (non-police operations)) has been brought into operation,',
No. 75, in page 17, line 40, leave out 'police officer' and insert 'person'.
No. 76, in clause 26, page 18, line 10, after '22', insert
'or (Codes of conduct (non-police investigations))'.

Mr. Michael: In Committee, we pointed out that it was extremely unsatisfactory for a number of investigators not to be required to operate to the standard that we required of the police. The response was that Ministers did not want to place onerous requirements on a variety of organisations that had a variety of responsibilities involving undertaking investigations. During the debate, we made it clear that we wanted to regulate the activities of and place the same onerous requirements on, for instance, customs officers, who frequently undertake investigations into criminal activities, which are comparable in every way to the work of the police. That point does not cover all their activities, and the same applies to other organisations that are sometimes involved in the investigation of criminal offences.
We took the Minister's response in Committee seriously and that is why we tabled the new clause, which we hope will cover the point rather more constructively. It would give a power to the Secretary of State to prepare a code or codes relating to the conduct of persons other than police officers who undertake criminal investigations. That means that the power lies in the hands of the Home Secretary to introduce a code for investigative organisations where it is appropriate. We also make it clear that he would have regard to the nature of the investigations being conducted by the person to whom the code applied. In responding to the debate in Committee, the Minister made the valid point that some investigations are comparable to the work of police officers, but that other investigations undertaken by a variety of public bodies are not comparable. We allow for that distinction in the new clause.
7.15 pm
We also underline the point that there is a need for persons other than police officers who conduct investigations to do so in the same manner where an equivalent matter is involved. I make the point strongly that it is the work of Customs and Excise in gathering intelligence, through central intelligence operations, and in investigating offences which is strictly comparable to the work of the police. It seems odd to suggest that, in relation to matters such as drug smuggling, different criteria should be applied to a non-police prosecuting or investigating agency from those that are stringently applied to the police, who are already far more accountable than an agency such as Customs and Excise. I again make it clear that I am talking only about the investigative functions of such agencies which are comparable to police functions.
There is a danger of confusion, arising from questions such as who is an investigator, to whom the code applies, which is not mentioned in the Bill, and which parts of the code apply to people other than police officers, if we stick to the present wording in the Bill. It merely requires other


investigators to have regard to the code of conduct, which has been made available in draft and which specifically applies to the police. We require the highest standards to be observed by police officers. The fact that Ministers made the draft code available at a very early stage has been helpful to us. That allowed for much better and informed debate, and I place on record our thanks for the way in which Ministers made our deliberations in Committee far more fruitful as a result. The need to go down many false trails was avoided because answers had been given to us in the draft code.
At the end of the debate in Committee, I said that I hoped that the Minister would consider the points raised in the light of our constructive exchanges and that we would study the Minister's comments between the Committee stage and Report. We have done so. I believe that the new clause avoids the difficulties that the Minister highlighted in the Committee debate. It is disappointing that the Government have not tabled an amendment rather than, once again, leaving it to the Opposition. However, I stress that we have tabled an enabling new clause. It does not require the Home Secretary to use the power that it contains, but it means that, without primary legislation, it would be possible to extend a specific code to agencies other than the police.

Mr. Kirkhope: On 16 May in Committee, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth knows, mark 1 of his proposals was put before the Committee. Sadly, I had to say that we were unable to accede to his wishes. In the following sitting on 21 May, as I said and as was reported in Hansard, he miraculously produced a derivative which I regard as mark 2. Again, I was not able really to help him. Today we have mark 3, so one cannot say that the hon. Gentleman has not been trying hard in his wish to see his proposals accepted. I am sorry to say that I cannot accept those proposals, and I shall explain why.
New clause 15 would enable the Secretary of State to prepare codes for the conduct of criminal investigations by persons other than police officers. Amendments Nos. 73 to 76 make related changes to part II of the Bill. As the hon. Gentleman has more or less confirmed, the new clause is presumably meant to ensure that if the Secretary of State prepares a code for non-police investigations, it is binding to the persons to whom it applies. However, I am not certain that the new clause would achieve that. Unlike clause 22, it does not require the code to contain provisions designed to secure that anything is done by such persons. It provides simply that the Secretary of State should have regard to the nature of a criminal investigation and ensure that it is conducted as far as possible in the same manner as if it were conducted by police officers. It is not clear what practical effect the new clause would have. Despite the hon. Gentleman's remarks, I am sure that that is the position.

Mr. Michael: Perhaps I may help by explaining what is meant by that. The new clause states that the Home Secretary, in preparing the code, should have regard to those elements. Once it had been prepared by the Home Secretary, the code would be binding on the individuals required to observe it.
Subsection (2) of the new clause would merely ensure that the Home Secretary had regard to two elements that I understand the Minister wanted to include in the requirements placed on non-police investigating bodies.

Mr. Kirkhope: We had a long debate in Committee on the whole question of codes as they apply to non-police investigators. We exhausted the discussion and my conclusions at the time were that codes of practice were so different and disparate, and in many ways they should be, because of the different nature of activities of certain bodies and the fact that some, such as the Health and Safety Executive, have a dual role of investigation and prosecution. I explained all that and we went through it with great care.
I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying to be helpful, but whatever he has said, I do not consider it necessary to amend the Bill as he proposes. As he knows, it already requires the Secretary of State to prepare a code of practice for criminal investigations by police officers and it requires investigators other than the police to have regard to the relevant provisions.
As I explained in Committee, that formulation was based on the precedent in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I also explained that a number of cases since then have established that the relevant provisions of the PACE codes of practice are binding on persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences.
Although I fully understand why the hon. Gentleman wants to give the Secretary of State the power contained in new clause 15, we continue to believe that it is one power that he does not need to take.
Despite the hon. Gentleman's eloquence, the arguments that he made and the stamina that he displayed, we are not persuaded that the new clause is necessary or desirable. We believe that we can achieve the necessary elements without it. So, on behalf of the Government, I am afraid that I am not able to accept the new clause.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful to the Minister for at least trying to be positive in the way that he responded, even if the answer is still a clear no. We all agree about the importance of giving the police specific and clear responsibilities. The trouble is that the Bill requires non-police investigators only to "have regard" to its provisions and to the code of conduct. To a great extent, they will decide for themselves what it means to have regard to those provisions. Therefore, the requirements on non-police investigators are far less onerous than they are on the police.

Mr. Kirkhope: I shall not detain the House, but I should make it clear that although those investigators have only to "have regard to", as I explained, the courts will take careful note of whether they have done so, and there is plenty of evidence that that is an onerous requirement.

Mr. Michael: I accept that it would be an onerous requirement if it were enforced by the courts, but that will not apply where it does not come to the attention of the courts. We are concerned not only with what comes to the attention of the courts, but with the ethos and method of investigating and passing on information in the process of prosecution, which investigators are required to observe.
The fact that the requirements are less onerous than those on the police is perhaps a tribute to the importance that we place on the police. However, there is a growth in investigative and intelligence activities by non-police organisations, particularly Customs and Excise, as I highlighted earlier.
Many investigating organisations also act as the prosecutor, so there is no clear separation between investigator and prosecutor, which is a strength of the structure reflected in the Bill in respect of the police.
For those reasons, we felt that the new clause was desirable and should be added to the Bill. However, it is clear that the Minister will not accept it. He has responded in a courteous way. I believe that at some point in future we shall have to return to this in amending legislation, but for today I am content for the points to have been made. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3

PRIMARY DISCLOSURE BY PROSECUTOR

Mr. Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 2, line 34, leave out from 'accused' to 'or' in line 36 and insert
'and which may be relevant to an issue in the case'.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 32, in page 2, line 34, leave out
'in the prosecutor's opinion might'
and insert
'might be reasonably expected to'.
No. 71, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'in the prosecutor's opinion'.
No. 72, in page 2, line 35, leave out 'undermine' and insert 'cast serious doubt on'.
No. 31, in page 2, line 39, after second 'material', insert
'relevant to the offence or to the offender or to the surrounding circumstances of the case.'.
No. 33, in page 3, line 3, at end insert—', or
(c) which falls within subsection (2A).
(2A) Material falls within this subsection if in pursuance of a code operative under Part II the prosecutor must, if he asks for the material, be given a copy of it or be allowed to inspect it in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'.
No. 34, in clause 7, page 5, line 25, at end insert—', or
(c) which falls within subsection (2A).
(2A) Material falls within this subsection if in pursuance of a code operative under Part II the prosecutor must, if he asks for the material, be given a copy of it or be allowed to inspect it in connection with the case for the prosecution against the accused.'.

Mr. Mullin: The amendments address what in my view is the main defect of the Bill—that, as drafted, it allows the police and prosecution to determine what material will be made available to the defence and prevents the defence from deciding for itself what is relevant to its case. That flies in the face of the lessons that we should have learnt from the disastrous series of miscarriages of justice in the 1970s and 1980s, which inflicted so much damage on the credibility of our legal system. I am sorry if it upsets the Solicitor-General, but I repeat that deliberate or negligent

disclosure by the police or prosecution was an important feature of just about all those cases and, if it remains unchanged, the Bill will lay the ground for further disasters.
My amendments and those in the names of my hon. Friends provide the Government with a number of alternatives. In amendments Nos. 71 and 72, my hon. Friends seek to soften the effect of clause 3. That is certainly a step in the right direction, but I seek to go further. My amendment No. 30, drafted with the help of Mr. Roy Amlot QC, deletes the prosecutor's opinion from the clause and the suggestion that only evidence that undermines the defence case should be disclosed, and seeks considerably to widen the definition of what should be disclosed by obliging disclosure of any material that might be relevant to the case.
Amendment No. 31 offers an alternative. It proposes that the prosecutor must make available to the defence all material
relevant to the offence or to the offender or to the surrounding circumstances of the case".
Those words have been chosen with care. They are taken from recommendation 124 of the royal commission on criminal justice, which was set up by the Government precisely with a view to recommending measures that would restore confidence in the criminal justice system. Ministers are not slow to quote the royal commission when it suits them, but they rejected that recommendation, and I am seeking to implement it.
My amendment No. 32, drafted with the help of the Law Society, offers yet another possibility. It deletes the reference to the prosecutor's opinion, and substitutes a test of reasonableness. My amendments Nos. 33 and 34—also drafted with the help of the Law Society—clarify the definition of prosecution material in clauses 3 and 7. As currently drafted, the Bill gives the police far too much latitude. There is a danger that they, not the overworked prosecuting counsel, will in practice decide what shall be disclosed. That is a recipe for a great deal of trouble in the future.
7.30 pm
The Government are spoilt for choice. They can choose between four definitions of what should be disclosed. Before they reject them all out of hand, they should perhaps bear it in mind that the definition proposed in the Bill has been rejected not only by the Opposition but by the royal commission, the Law Society and the Criminal Bar Association, whose members will have to implement the disclosure regime.
Far from simplifying matters, the Bill introduces unnecessary complications. Many criminal cases are not particularly complex: under the present system, the prosecution simply provides the defence with a bundle of what is known as non-material evidence—that is, statements collected by the police and not relied on as part of their case. The Bill requires the prosecutor to examine all material before handing it over, and to make a judgment about every item. He will then have to provide the defence with a schedule describing the nature of each item. Finally, the prosecutor must make a judgment about what further material must be disclosed. Just where will Crown prosecution lawyers, who are already considerably overstretched, find time to engage in such a complex procedure? There is an obvious danger that mistakes will


be made; indeed, it is likely that in most cases such judgments will be left to the police, and that is fraught with danger.
I recognise—as the royal commission did—that occasional demands from unscrupulous lawyers for large quantities of material relevant to the defence case can cause unnecessary delay and expense. That is particularly the case in fraud trials. I acknowledge that it may well be possible to take steps to simplify and improve existing practice, but I do not believe that the problem is as great as some people allege. Indeed, I believe that it has been deliberately talked up to distract attention from the inconvenient fact that the failure of the police and Crown prosecutors to disclose material that they should have disclosed caused many of our recent problems.
In the Carl Bridgewater case—if I may take a topical example—many years elapsed before it was revealed to the defence that unidentified fingerprints had been found at the scene of the murder. A further five or six years elapsed before Ministers were persuaded to disclose that those fingerprints—which do not belong to any of the convicted men—were found on the victim's bike, which was picked up by one of the murderers and tossed into a nearby pigsty. Despite what has now emerged, and although the man who prosecuted in the case has urged the Government to refer it back to the Court of Appeal, the Home Secretary is refusing to do so. That suggests that a very casual attitude to disclosure prevails among Home Office Ministers. Indeed, one is bound to wonder whether any of the lessons of past disasters have been learnt.
That case is an illustration—only one of a number that I could offer—of the gulf that divides us on this issue. I say "divides us"; I remind the House that it divides the Government from not only the Opposition but the Criminal Bar Association, the Law Society and just about anyone with any expertise relating to criminal trials. It does not make sense to try to resolve problems with the existing arrangements by devising a system that is considerably more complicated than the existing system, and may store up even greater problems for the future.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks that this is a cheaper solution should reflect on the millions of pounds that are spent, and the vast quantities of extra paperwork that are incurred—to say nothing of the cost of imprisoning and compensating innocent people—when controversial cases revisit the Court of Appeal, often many years later. I have no doubt that, if it remains unamended, the Bill will result in more cases being referred back to the Appeal Court, as it becomes clear in future years that material that should have been made available to the defence at trial has been either negligently or deliberately—probably negligently in most cases—unreasonably withheld.

Mr. Michael: I wish to speak briefly about amendments Nos. 71 and 72, to which my name is attached.
Clause 3 requires the prosecutor to
disclose to the accused any prosecution material which has not previously been disclosed to the accused and which in the prosecutor's opinion might undermine the case for the prosecution against the accused".
We feel that the words "in the prosecutor's opinion" incorporate in the Bill a subjective test, rather than the objective test that is normal in legislation. I shall not make

the point at length, because I made it strongly in Committee. It is simple and straightforward, and I am surprised that the Government have still not accepted it— unless the Minister is going to surprise and delight us by accepting it in the next few minutes. I suspect that he will not do that.
Amendment No. 71 would leave out the words "in the prosecutor's opinion". Amendment No. 72 would replace the word "undermine" with the words "cast serious doubt on". We feel that the test that matters need to be disclosed if they might undermine the prosecution's case is far too black and white. To undermine a case is to leave nothing of that case to proceed, but other matters might be involved which, although not absolute and conclusive, would require judge and jury to exercise their critical faculties in deciding whether the case was made or had failed in the light of the evidence. The piece of evidence concerned, however, might be serious, and it is possible that, according to all the tests that we discussed in Committee and in previous debates on the Bill, it should be made available to the accused. It is not a question of absolutely anything having to be disclosed, but I feel that requiring the disclosure of significant material that would cast serious doubt on the case is preferable to the absolute concept of material that would totally undermine the case.
Let me make it clear—as we have done on a number of occasions, including Second Reading—that the Opposition fully support the Bill. We believe that the reduction in the volume of disclosure, and in the amount of paperwork, is an important objective. We also believe, however, that in seeking that objective it is important to get the balance right. That, indeed, is what most of our debates on Second Reading and in Committee have been about.
I think that the Bill has improved as a result of our debates. The Government have tabled amendments, in Committee and on Report, which deal with some of the issues raised in earlier debates. That is positive, and it is right to give credit for that. The absolute nature of the test in clause 3(1)(a) fails to get the balance right, and I hope that—at the very least—the Government will be willing to change the word "undermine" to a requirement to reveal material that would "cast serious doubt" on the case for the prosecution.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) takes a serious view of these matters, and I greatly respect his opinion because of his experience and the vast amount of time that he has spent dealing with serious miscarriages of justice. His judgment has been proved right on a number of occasions when hon. Members and others have backed away from accepting the logic of his case. I understand his personal reservations about the Bill and his concerns that limiting disclosure may lead to miscarriages of justice. Opposition Front Benchers have taken a different approach, which is to try to make sure that safeguards are in place and that the balance is right, to produce a reduction in disclosure without leading to miscarriages of justice.
In general, the Bill has the balance right, but I hope that the Minister will accept the two specific amendments about which I have spoken—in particular amendment No. 72, which I believe would make a significant improvement to the balance of the Bill without in any way undermining its purpose, which we support.

The Solicitor-General: I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) on this important topic, which goes to the heart of our reforms. I am a member of the Criminal Bar Association and I practise in the courts. If the regime is going to lead to injustice, I—together with my colleagues in the association—will be engaged in the front line with it. Therefore, I am as anxious as anyone can be to ensure that we put on the statute book a system that gives rise to justice, and avoids some of the horrible miscarriages of justice that have occurred in the past. I urge him not to remain in the past on this issue, as some of the critics of the Bill have done. The Government have learnt the lessons of the past and the structures that we are endeavouring to put in the Bill show that we have learnt those lessons well and truly.
Amendments Nos. 30, 72, 32 and 71 would all change the test for primary prosecution disclosure. In summary, they would not affect any worthwhile reform, and would entrench the present deficiencies of the law in the statute book. For that reason, I invite the House to resist the amendments. I would also caution against wrenching part of the new system out of its context. For example, there has been an over-close examination of the prosecution's primary disclosure and the test to be applied there. It must not be taken out of context, and should be looked at against the background of part II and the code that will be introduced, which will place new and extensive duties upon the police.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South was right— unless the investigation is carried out both honestly and effectively, and unless honest and effective revelation is made of all information by the police to the prosecutor, injustices will occur. One of the best encouragements to get the police to act in an honest and effective way is to present them with a regime that is fair, and that they can see is fair. There is therefore no incentive for them to cut corners and indulge in what is sometimes infelicitously called "noble cause corruption". One of the attributes of the Bill is that it presents a regime that is fair, and places explicit duties on the police, prosecution and defence. Everyone will see that it is fair and will co-operate in its implementation. If so, the horrors of the past will be avoided.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Solicitor-General agree that, far from reducing the burden on the Crown Prosecution Service, the Bill will increase it, because the CPS will have to make a judgment about each separate item? Alternatively, will not the CPS leave the responsibility to the police because, as he knows, the CPS is seriously overstretched?

The Solicitor-General: Such complaints are made by people who do not have sufficient first-hand experience of the system. One of the problems of the present system is that far too much material—indeed, virtually the bulk of the prosecution material as defined by the broad test of the Keane case—is revealed by the police, first to the prosecution and then by the prosecution to the defence, irrespective of what the defence case is. That must be stopped. We must introduce into our law a test that is focused on the revelation and dissemination to the prosecution and the defence of material that is necessary in the interests of justice. At the moment, virtually

everything that the police find must be copied and disgorged through the system to the prosecution and the defence.
Amendment No. 30 proposes a test of relevance, which includes everything that might have a bearing on the case. That is very different from whether it has a bearing on the defence, and that is what the accused relies upon in court. The affect of the current test is that the police often have to photocopy and deliver large volumes of material to the accused, much of which is unnecessary and completely irrelevant to the defence. It places upon the police, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, a completely disproportionate burden.
A test as wide ranging as "relevance" does nothing to narrow the issues in dispute in the case. One of the objectives achieved by the legislation is not only to reduce the volume and nature of the material that goes down the pipeline from the prosecution to the defence, but to put in place a system that will enable the issues in the case to be identified before the trial begins. Our present system is sorely defective, in that it does not achieve that. All too often, we go into cases not knowing what the issues are, and we sometimes sit for weeks before the issues emerge. That must not be allowed to continue.
Amendment No. 72 would replace the word "undermine" with the phrase "cast serious doubt on". I do not accept that the word "undermine" is unduly weighty. It is designed to ensure that the prosecutor discloses at the first stage material that, generally speaking, has an adverse effect on the strength of the prosecution case. I urge those who say that that is an unduly narrow test to hold on because the machine does not stop there. The next stage is for the defence to put its case and then secondary prosecution disclosure takes place.
The second reason why I invite the House to reject amendment No. 72 is that it would not materially benefit the accused. It may create difficulties of its own by requiring the prosecutor to consider whether material casts doubt on the prosecution or serious doubt. There would be word pinching about whether it was a doubt or, as the amendment requires, a "serious doubt".
Amendments Nos. 32 and 72—a similar amendment was tabled in Committee—would introduce an objective test. They would give rise to the risk of judicial review of many thousands of cases in the magistrates court where, under our new regime, for the first time, there would be disclosure. There would be a risk of judicial review along the lines that existed for a period on the grounds of abuse of process based on delay. We do not want to return to that.

Mr. Michael: I am concerned at what the Solicitor-General is saying. First, the meaning that he places on the word "undermine" is far too slack. It means material that would do far more than merely have an adverse effect on the prosecution case, and therefore it is an onerous test. The test that we suggest involves material that would cast "serious doubt". I am not satisfied with his explanation. That would lead us to press amendment No. 72 to a vote. I invite him to explain why more legal challenges would be likely on our suggested wording than on his word, "undermine". Surely that word opens up far more avenues for argument than does our suggested formulation.

The Solicitor-General: The elimination of the words "in the prosecutor's opinion" and the substitution of that


subjective test by an objective one would lead to judicial review of many thousands of cases in the magistrates court.

Mr. Michael: With respect, I was talking about amendment No. 72. It was on that narrow point that I was asking for a response.

The Solicitor-General: The original White Paper, on which we consulted widely, had the word "undermine" in it. There was no dissent from that. When the Bill was introduced in the other place, the former Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor, gave it his blessing. We have considered time and time again the representations that we have had not only from the Opposition but from the Criminal Bar Association, the Bar Council and the Law Society and concluded that the present test is the correct one.
Amendments Nos. 31, 33 and 34 are not necessary. The code of practice provides that material that is relevant to the investigation must be recorded and retained by the investigator and revealed to the prosecutor, who will receive a schedule of sensitive material and a schedule of non-sensitive material. The description of each item on the schedule should make clear the nature of the item and contain sufficient detail to enable the prosecutor to form a judgment on whether it should be disclosed. Furthermore, clause 4 provides that the prosecutor must give the accused the schedule of non-sensitive material at the time of primary prosecution disclosure.
Similarly, amendment No. 34, which widens the definition of prosecution material in clause 7, is unnecessary because clause 8 provides that if the accused has reason to believe that the prosecutor has material that has not been disclosed and that might reasonably be expected to assist his defence, which he has disclosed, he may apply to the court for an order requiring the prosecutor to disclose such material. It is perfectly open for the defence in those circumstances to apply to the court for disclosure of the material that the prosecutor has not himself inspected but which is referred to on the schedule. That should allay the fear of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South that the defence will not be put in a position to put forward its best defence. We are confident that this regime, considered in full, will achieve the essential objective of doing justice in all cases. I therefore invite the House to reject the amendment.

Mr. Mullin: I want to address one point made by the Solicitor-General. He said that he suspected that the fears were on the part of people who were stuck in the past and who do not have too much experience. I will own up to not having much experience of the conduct of criminal cases, although some of those in which I have had an interest were large and complex. My points about the extra burden that would be placed on the prosecutor were made not by me, but in a paper by the Criminal Bar Association. The signatures on the bottom are those of Mr.Roy Amlot, QC; Mr. John Nutting, QC; Mr. Stephen Kramer, QC; Mr. David Perry; and Mr. Jeremy Dein, on behalf of the Criminal Bar Association. Those gentlemen have quite a lot of experience of the criminal justice process. I cannot stress too strongly that it is their opinion, not mine.
I take a more robust view than my Front-Bench colleagues, but I recognise that their amendments are an improvement on what is in the Bill. So, with some reluctance, I withdraw my amendment in favour of those of my hon. Friends.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 72, in page 2, line 35, leave out 'undermine' and insert 'cast serious doubt on'.— [Mr. Michael.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 200.

Division No. 145]
[7.57 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Heppell, John


Ainger, Nick
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Allen, Graham
Hinchliffe, David


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Hoey, Kate


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Ashton, Joe
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Austin-Walker, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hutton, John


Barnes, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Bayley, Hugh
Ingram, Adam


Bell, Stuart
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Jamieson, David


Bennett, Andrew F
Jenkins, Brian (SE Staff)


Benton, Joe
Johnston, Sir Russell


Bermingham, Gerald
Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)


Berry, Roger
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Betts, Clive
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Burden, Richard
Keen, Alan


Byers, Stephen
Kennedy, Charles (Ross,C&S)


Callaghan, Jim
Khabra, Piara S


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Kilfoyle, Peter


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Liddell, Mrs Helen


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Livingstone, Ken


Canavan, Dennis
Llwyd, Elfyn


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomery)
Loyden, Eddie 


Chisholm, Malcolm
McAllion, John


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
McAvoy, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McCartney, Ian


Coffey, Ms Ann
Macdonald, Calum


Connarty, Michael
McKelvey, William


Corston, Jean
Maclennan, Robert


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Madden, Max


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Mahon, Alice


Davies, Chris (L'Boro & S'worth)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)


Denham, John
Maxton, John


Dewar, Donald
Michael, Alun


Dixon, Don
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Eagle, Ms Angela
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Eastham, Ken
Morgan, Rhodri


Etherington, Bill
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fatchett, Derek
Mudie, George


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mullin, Chris


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Don (Bath)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Fraser, John
O'Hara, Edward


Fyfe, Maria
Olner, Bill


Gapes, Mike
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Pearson, Ian


Gerrard, Neil
Pike, Peter L


Godsiff, Roger
Pope, Greg


Golding, Mrs Llin
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Prescott, Rt Hon John


Grocott, Bruce
Reid, Dr John


Hain, Peter
Rogers, Allan


Harvey, Nick
Rooker, Jeff


Henderson, Doug
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Rowlands, Ted
Tyler, Paul


Simpson, Alan
Vaz, Keith


Skinner, Dennis
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Wallace, James


Spellar, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)
Welsh, Andrew


Stevenson, George
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Strang,Dr. Gavin
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)



Wilson, Brian


Straw, Jack
Winnick, David


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wise, Audrey


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Worthington, Tony


Tipping, Paddy



Touhig, Don
Tellers for the Ayes:


Trickett, Jon
Mr. Eric Clarke and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.


Turner, Dennis





NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Forman, Nigel


Alexander, Richard
Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Forth, Eric


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Fox, Rt Hon Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Amess, David
French, Douglas


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Fry, Sir Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas (Hazel Grv)
Gale, Roger


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Gardiner, Sir George


Baker, Nicholas (North Dorset)
Garnier, Edward


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Gill, Christopher


Bates, Michael
Gillan, Cheryl


Batiste, Spencer
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Beggs, Roy
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Bellingham, Henry
Gorst, Sir John


Beresford, Sir Paul
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Boswell, Tim
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archibald


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brandreth, Gyles
Hanley, Rt Hon Jeremy


Brazier, Julian
Hannam, Sir John


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (South Dorset)
Haselhurst, Sir Alan 

Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Hendry, Charles


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Horam, John


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clappison, James
Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coe, Sebastian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Congdon, David
Hunter, Andrew


Conway, Derek
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
 

Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Key, Robert


Davies, Quentin (Stamford)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Rt Hon Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, Sir David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lawrence, Sir Ivan


Dykes, Hugh
Legg, Barry


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Leigh, Edward


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lester, Sir James (Broxtowe)


Evennett, David
Lidington, David


Faber, David
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacKay, Andrew


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Fishburn, Dudley
McLoughlin, Patrick





Madel, Sir David
Sims, Roger


Maginnis, Ken
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Maitland, Lady Olga
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malone, Gerald
Speed, Sir Keith


Mans, Keith
Spencer, Sir Derek


Marland, Paul
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)


Merchant, Piers
Spink, Dr Robert


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Sir David (NW Hants)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon Sir James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Monro, Rt Hon Sir Hector
Stephen, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stern, Michael


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stewart, Allan


Nicholls, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Sweeney, Walter


Norris, Steve
Sykes, John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Ottaway, Richard
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Page, Richard
Thomason, Roy


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patnick, Sir Irvine
Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tracey, Richard


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Trotter, Neville


Pawsey, James
Twinn, Dr Ian


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Pickles, Eric
Viggers, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Powell, William (Corby)
Waterson, Nigel


Rathbone, Tim
Watts, John


Riddick, Graham
Wells, Bowen


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Ann


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Willetts, David


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wilshire, David


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ross, William (E Londonderry)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wolfson, Mark


Sackville, Tom
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, David (Dover)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)



Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Tellers for the Noes:


Shepherd, Sir Colin (Hereford)
Dr. Liam Fox and Mr. Simon Burns.


Shersby, Sir Michael

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

SECONDARY DISCLOSURE BY PROSECUTOR

Amendment made: No. 10, in page 5, line 15, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 8

APPLICATION BY ACCUSED FOR DISCLOSURE

Amendment made:No. 11, in page 5, line 45, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 9

CONTINUING DUTY OF PROSECUTOR TO DISCLOSE

Amendment made: No. 12, in page 6, line 46, leave out 'to the prosecutor'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 11

FAULTS IN DISCLOSURE BY ACCUSED

Amendments made: No. 13, in page 7, line 37, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.

No. 14, in page 7, line 40, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.

No. 15, in page 7, line 43, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.

No. 16, in page 8, line 2, leave out 'that section' and insert 'section 5'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 22

CODE OF PRACTICE

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 15, line 1, at end insert—

'(aa) that where a criminal investigation is conducted all reasonable steps are taken for the purposes of the investigation and, in particular, all reasonable lines of inquiry are pursued;'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 43

REINSTATEMENT OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 27, line 24, leave out from '(repeals)' to end of line 25 and insert

'the entries relating to the following (which concern committal, transfer and other matters) shall be omitted—

(a) sections 13(3) and 49(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925;
(b) section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965;
(c) section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and in section 36(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings";
(d) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the words from "section 13(3)" to "but";
(e) in section 46(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 the words "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and", "which respectively allow", "committal proceedings and in other", "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980", "which punish the making of, "102 or" and ", as the case may be", and section 46(2) of that Act;
(f) in section 32(1)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act1973 the words "tried or";
(g) in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, paragraph (a) of the definition of "Committed for trial";
(h) in section 97(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or", sections 102, 103, 105, 106 and 145(l)(e) of that Act, in section 150(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings", and paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to that Act;
(i) in section 2(2)(g) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the words "or committed for trial";
(j) in section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the words "trial or";
(k) paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1987;
(1) in section 20(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the words "trial or", and section 20(4)(bb) and (5) of that Act;
(m) in section 1(4) of the War Crimes Act 1991 the words "England, Wales or", and Part I of the Schedule to that Act.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 45

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS

Amendment made: No. 36, in page 28, line 23, after 'proceedings' insert 'and related matters'.— [Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 63

SUMMONS TO WITNESS TO ATTEND CROWN COURT

Amendments made: No. 1, in page 40, line 32, leave out 'sections'.

No. 2, in page 40, line 33, at end insert—

'"Issue of witness summons on application'.

No. 3, in page 40, line 34, leave out

'Summons to witness to attend Crown Court'

and insert

'Issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court'.

No. 4, in page 41, line 5, after 'issued' insert 'under this section'.

No. 5, in page 41, line 6, leave out

'by a party to the case'.

No. 6, in page 41, line 26, at end insert—

'(aa) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be made by a party to the case;'.

No. 7, in page 41, line 37, after 'hearing' insert

'of the application for the witness summons'.

No. 8, in page 42, line 13, after 'summons' insert

'which is issued under section 2 above and'.

No. 9, in page 43, line 45, at end insert—

'Issue of witness summons of court's own motion

Issue of witness summons of Crown Court's own motion

2D. For the purpose of any criminal proceedings before it, the Crown Court may of its own motion issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to a person and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the court at the time and place stated in the summons, and
(b) give evidence, or produce any document or thing specified in the summons.

Application to make summons ineffective

2E.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 2D above is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court, and
(b) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,
the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.

(2) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.

(3) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.

(4) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but
(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,
he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.

Other provisions'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Clause 74

EXTENT

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 48, line 29, leave out 'section' and insert

'sections 43, 45, (Abolition of witness orders), (Witness summons: securing attendance of witness), (Use of written statements and depositions at trial) and'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Orders of the Day — New Schedule

STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS

Statements

1.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) a written statement has been admitted in evidence in proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices,
(b) in those proceedings a person has been committed for trial,
(c) for the purposes of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the statement complied with section 5B of that Act prior to the committal for trial,
(d) the statement purports to be signed by a justice of the peace, and
(e) sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the statement may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for the offence for which he was committed for trial or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if—

(a) it is proved that the statement was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed,
(b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that subparagraph (2) shall not apply, or
(c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.

Depositions

2.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

(a) in pursuance of section 97A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 (summons or warrant to have evidence taken as a deposition etc.) a person has had his evidence taken as a deposition for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices,
(b) the deposition has been admitted in evidence in those proceedings,
(c) in those proceedings a person has been committed for trial,
(d) for the purposes of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the deposition complied with section 5C of that Act prior to the committal for trial,
(e) the deposition purports to be signed by the justice before whom it purports to have been taken, and
(f) sub-paragraph (3) does not prevent sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(2) Where this sub-paragraph applies the deposition may without further proof be read as evidence on the trial of the accused, whether for the offence for which he was committed for trial or for any other offence arising out of the same transaction or set of circumstances.

(3) Sub-paragraph (2) does not apply if—

(a) it is proved that the deposition was not signed by the justice by whom it purports to have been signed,
(b) the court of trial at its discretion orders that subparagraph (2) shall not apply, or
(c) a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying.

(4) If a party to the proceedings objects to sub-paragraph (2) applying the court of trial may order that the objection shall have no effect if the court considers it to be in the interests of justice so to order.

Signatures

3.—(1) A justice who signs a certificate authenticating one or more relevant statements or depositions shall be treated for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 as signing the statement or deposition or (as the case may be) each of them.

(2) For this purpose—

(a) a relevant statement is a written statement made by a person for the purposes of proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices;
(b) a relevant deposition is a deposition made in pursuance of section 97A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 for the purposes of such proceedings.

Time limit for objection

4. Without prejudice to section 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1981 (rules of court) the power to make rules under that section includes power to make provision—

(a) requiring an objection under paragraph l(3)(c) or 2(3)(c) to be made within a period prescribed in the rules;
(b) allowing the court of trial at its discretion to permit such an objection to be made outside any such period.

Retrial

5. In Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 (procedural and other provisions applicable on order for retrial) in paragraph 1 for the words from "section 13(3)" to "before the original trial" there shall be substituted "paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule (Statements and depositions) to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (use of written statements and depositions) shall not apply to any written statement or deposition read as evidence at the original trial".

Repeals

6.—(1) Section 13(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 (which relates to depositions taken before examining justices and is superseded by paragraph 2 above) shall be omitted.

(2) Section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 (which is superseded by paragraph 3 above) shall be omitted.

Commencement

7. This Schedule shall have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order.'—[Mr. Maclean.] Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 1

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 49, line 30, at end insert—

'(dd) statements complying with section 5D below.'

No. 39, in page 49, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 5 on page 50 and insert—

'(e) documents falling within section 5E below.'

No. 40, in page 50, line 48, at end insert—

'(6) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.'

No. 41, in page 51, line 15, at end insert—

'(4) So much of any deposition as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any deposition as is not read aloud.

(5) Any document or other object referred to as an exhibit and identified in a deposition admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall be treated as if it had been produced as an exhibit and identified in court by the person whose evidence is taken as the deposition.

(6) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.'

No. 42, in page 51, line 15, at end insert—

'Statements

5D.—(1) For the purposes of section 5A above a statement complies with this section if the conditions falling within subsections (2) to (4) below are met.

(2) The condition falling within this subsection is that, before the committal proceedings begin, the prosecutor notifies the magistrates' court and each of the other parties to the proceedings that he believes—

(a) that the statement might by virtue of section 23 or 24 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (statements in certain documents) be admissible as evidence if the case came to trial, and
(b) that the statement would not be admissible as evidence otherwise than by virtue of section 23 or 24 of that Act if the case came to trial.

(3) The condition falling within this subsection is that—

(a) the prosecutor's belief is based on information available to him at the time he makes the notification,
(b) he has reasonable grounds for his belief, and
(c) he gives the reasons for his belief when he makes the notification.

(4) The condition falling within this subsection is that when the court or a party is notified as mentioned in subsection (2) above a copy of the statement is given, by or on behalf of the prosecutor, to the court or the party concerned.

(5) So much of any statement as is in writing and is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any statement as is not read aloud.'

No. 43, in page 51, line 15, at end insert—

'Other documents

5E.—(1) The following documents fall within this section—

(a) any document which by virtue of any enactment is evidence in proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices;
(b) any document which by virtue of any enactment is admissible, or may be used, or is to be admitted or received, in or as evidence in such proceedings;
(c) any document which by virtue of any enactment may be considered in such proceedings;
(d) any document whose production constitutes proof in such proceedings by virtue of any enactment;
(e) any document by the production of which evidence may be given in such proceedings by virtue of any enactment.

(2) In subsection (1) above—

(a) references to evidence include references to prima facie evidence;
(b) references to any enactment include references to any provision of this Act.

(3) So much of any document as is admitted in evidence by virtue of this section shall, unless the court commits the accused for trial by virtue of section 6(2) below or the court otherwise directs, be read aloud at the hearing; and where the court so directs an account shall be given orally of so much of any document as is not read aloud.

(4) In this section "document" means anything in which information of any description is recorded.'

No. 44, in page 51, line 15, at end insert—

'Proof by production of copy

5F.—(1) Where a statement, deposition or document is admissible in evidence by virtue of section 5B, 5C, 5D or 5E above it may be proved by the production of—

(a) the statement, deposition or document, or
(b) a copy of it or the material part of it.

(2) Subsection (l)(b) above applies whether or not the statement, deposition or document is still in existence.

(3) It is immaterial for the purposes of this section how many removes there are between a copy and the original.

(4) In this section "copy", in relation to a statement, deposition or document, means anything onto which information recorded in the statement, deposition or document has been copied, by whatever means and whether directly or indirectly.'

No. 45, in page 51, line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.

No. 46, in page 52, line 22, leave out first 'the' and insert 'a'.

No. 47, in page 52, line 33, leave out 'Isles' and insert 'Islands'.

No. 48, in page 52, line 36, leave out from beginning to end of line 38.

No. 49, in page 52, line 53, at end insert—

'(6A) Where—

(a) a summons is issued under subsection (2) above or a warrant is issued under subsection (3) or (6) above, and
(b) the summons or warrant is issued with a view to securing that a person has his evidence taken as a deposition,

the time appointed in the summons or specified in the warrant shall be such as to enable the evidence to be taken as a deposition before a magistrates' court begins to inquire into the offence concerned as examining justices.'

No. 50, in page 53, line 39, after 'for' insert

'"tendered" there shall be substituted "admitted" and for'.

No. 51, in page 53, line 40, leave out from 'Schedule 3' to end of line 41 and insert

'the following shall be substituted for paragraph 2(a) (representative may make statement on behalf of corporation before examining justices)—

"(a) make before examining justices such representations as could be made by an accused who is not a corporation;".'

No. 52, in page 53, line 43, at end insert—

'Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867

14A. Sections 6 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1867 (statements taken under section 105 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980) shall be omitted.'

No. 53, in page 54, line 37, leave out paragraph 22 and insert—

'22.—(1) Section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 (written statements made outside England and Wales) shall be amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1) the following words shall be omitted—

(a) "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and";


(b) "which respectively allow";
(c) "committal proceedings and in other";
(d) "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980";
(e) "which punish the making of;
(f) "102 or";
(g) ", as the case may be".

(3) The following subsections shall be inserted after subsection

(1)—

"(1A) The following provisions, namely—

(a) so much of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as relates to written statements and to documents or other exhibits referred to in them,
(b) section 5B of that Act, and
(c) section 106 of that Act,
shall apply where written statements are made in Scotland or Northern Ireland as well as where written statements are made in England and Wales.

(1B) The following provisions, namely—

(a) so much of section 5A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 as relates to written statements and to documents or other exhibits referred to in them, and
(b) section 5B of that Act,

shall (subject to subsection (1C) below) apply where written statements are made outside the United Kingdom.

(1C) Where written statements are made outside the United Kingdom—

(a) section 5B of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall apply with the omission of subsections (2)(b) and (3A);
(b) paragraph 1 of Schedule (Statements and depositions) to the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (use of written statements at trial) shall not apply."

(4) Subsection (2) shall be omitted.'

No. 54, in page 55, line 13, at end insert—

'23A. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 71 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (microfilm copies)—

"Where the proceedings concerned are proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices this section shall have effect with the omission of the words "authenticated in such manner as the court may approve.'"

No. 55, in page 55, line 33, leave out lines 33 to 37 and insert—

' "(5) This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.'"

No. 56, in page 55, line 40, leave out lines 40 to 43 and insert—

' "(5) This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.'"

No. 57, in page 55, line 43, at end insert—

'28A. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (statements in certain documents)—

"This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices."

28B. The following shall be inserted at the end of section 27 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (proof of statements contained in documents)—

"This section shall not apply to proceedings before a magistrates' court inquiring into an offence as examining justices.'"—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 2

FRAUD

Amendment made: No. 17, in page 61, line 9, at end insert—

'(aa) on or after the appointed day the accused is committed for trial for the offence,'.—[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 3

MODIFICATIONS FOR NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendments made: No. 70, in page 62, line 22, at end insert—

'5A. In section (Time limits: transitional) (1) for "the bill of indictment is preferred" substitute "the indictment is presented".'

No. 20, in page 64, line 35, leave out from beginning to end of line 43 and insert—

'(8) This section applies where a notice of transfer is given under Article 3 of the 1988 Order or Article 4 of the 1995 Order (as the case may be) on or after the appointed day".

17A. In section (War crimes: abolition of transfer procedure) for subsections (1) and (2) substitute—

"(1) Part II of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991 and section 1 (4) of that Act so far as relating thereto (transfer procedure in Northern Ireland in cases of war crimes) shall cease to have effect.

(2) In Article 29(2) of the Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (free legal aid in Crown Court) sub-paragraph (d) (which relates to a notice of transfer under Part II of the Schedule to the War Crimes Act 1991) shall cease to have effect." '.

No. 21, in page 67, line 7, leave out

'Summons to witness to attend Crown Court'

and insert

'Issue of witness summons on application to Crown Court'.

No. 22, in page 67, line 22, after 'issued' insert 'under this section'.

No. 23, in page 67, line 22, leave out

'by a party to the case'.

No. 24, in page 67, line 42, at end insert—

'(aa) may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require an application to be made by a party to the case;'.

No. 25, in page 67, line 52, after 'hearing' insert

'of the application for the witness summons'.

No. 26, in page 68, line 21, after 'summons' insert

'which is issued under section 51A and'.

No. 27, in page 69, line 39, at end insert—

'Issue of witness summons of Crown Court's own motion

5IDA. For the purpose of any criminal proceedings before it, the Crown Court may of its own motion issue a summons (a witness summons) directed to a person and requiring him to—

(a) attend before the court at the time and place stated in the summons; and
(b) give evidence or produce any document or thing specified in the summons.

Application to make summons ineffective

51DB.—(1) If a witness summons issued under section 51DA is directed to a person who—

(a) applies to the Crown Court, and


(b) satisfies the court that he cannot give any evidence likely to be material evidence or, as the case may be, produce any document or thing likely to be material evidence,
the court may direct that the summons shall be of no effect.

(2) The Crown Court may refuse to make a direction under this section if any requirement relating to the application under this section is not fulfilled.

(3) An application under this section must be made in accordance with Crown Court rules; and different provision may be made for different cases or descriptions of case.

(4) Crown Court rules may, in such cases as the rules may specify, require that where—

(a) a person applying under this section can produce a particular document or thing, but
(b) he seeks to satisfy the court that the document or thing is not likely to be material evidence,

he must arrange for the document or thing to be available at the hearing of the application.'

No. 28, in page 70, line 46, at end insert—

'26A. In section 64(1) for "section 9 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" substitute "section 1 of the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (Northern Ireland) 1968" and for "subsection (3)(a)" substitute "subsection (4)(a)".'

No. 29, in page 75, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 44 and insert—


'1. WAR CRIMES


Chapter or Number
Short title
Extent of repeal


1981 NI 18
The Legal Aid, Advice and Assistance (Northern Ireland) Order 1981.
In Article 29(2), sub-paragraph (d) and the word "or" immediately before it.


1991 c.13
The War Crimes Act1991.
Section 1(4), so far as relating to Part II of the Schedule. Section 3(3). Part II of the Schedule.


' —[Mr. Maclean.]

Schedule 4

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 58, in page 77, line 10, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 12 and insert—

'In Schedule 11, the entries mentioned in note 1 below.'

No. 59, in page 77, line 12, at end insert—

'1. The entries in Schedule 11 to the 1994 Act are those relating to the following—

(a) sections 13(3) and 49(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1925;
(b) section 1 of the Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965;
(c) section 7 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and in section 36(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings";
(d) in paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Appeal Act 1968 the words from "section 13(3)" to "but";
(e) in section 46(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 the words "Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and", "which respectively allow", "committal proceedings and in other", "and section 106 of the said Act of 1980", "which punish the making of, "102 or" and ", as the case may be", and section 46(2) of that Act;

(f) in section 32(1)(b) of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act
1973 the words "tried or";
(g) in Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978, paragraph (a) of the definition of "Committed for trial";
(h) in section 97(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 the words from "at an inquiry" to "be) or", sections 102, 103, 105, 106 and 145(l)(e) of that Act, in section 150(1) of that Act the definition of "committal proceedings", and paragraph 2 of Schedule 5 to that Act;
(i) in section 2(2)(g) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 the words "or committed for trial";
(j) in section 1(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1982 the words "trial or";
(k) paragraphs 10 and 11 of Schedule 2 to the Criminal Justice Act 1987;
(l) in section 20(4)(a) of the Legal Aid Act 1988 the words "trial or", and section 20(4)(bb) and (5) of that Act;
(m) in section 1(4) of the War Crimes Act 1991 the words "England, Wales or", and Part I of the Schedule to that Act.'

No. 60, in page 77, line 13, leave out 'These repeals' and insert

'2. The repeals under this paragraph (reinstatement of certain provisions)'.

No. 61, in page 77, line 13, at end insert—


'1A. WAR CRIMES


Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1988 c.34.
Legal Aid Act 1988.
Section 20(4)(bb).


1991 c.13.
War Crimes Act 1991.
 In section 1(4) the words "England, Wales or". Section 3(2). Part I of the Schedule.'

No. 62, in page 78, line 4, at end insert—


'4A. WITNESS ORDERS


Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1965 c.69.
Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.
Section 1.In section 3(1) the words "witness order or".




In section 4(1) the words "witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".




In the proviso to section 4(1) the words from "in the case" (where they first occur) to "witness summons".




In section 4(2) the words "a witness order or" and (where they next occur) "order or".


1971 c.23.
Courts Act 1971.
In Schedule 8,paragraph 45(1).


1980 c.43.
Magistrates'Courts Act 1980
Section 145(l)(e).

These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under section (Abolition of witness orders) of this Act.'

No. 63, in page 79. line 13, at end insert—


'1867 c. 35.
Criminal Law
 Section 6.



Amendment Act 1867.
Section 7.


1972 c.71.
Criminal Justice Act 1972.
In section 46(1) the following words—




"Section 102 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 and";




"which respectively allow";




"committal proceedings and in other";




"and section 106 of the said Act of 1980";




"which punish the making of; "102 or";




", as the case may be". Section 46(2).'

No. 64, in page 79, column 3, leave out lines 14 and 15.

No. 65, in page 79, leave out line 25.

No. 66, in page 79, line 25, column 3, at end insert—

'In Schedule 7,paragraph 2.'

No. 67, in page 79, line 30, column 3, at end insert—

'In Schedule 15, paragraph 68.'

No. 68, in page 79, line 32, at end insert—


'8A. STATEMENTS AND DEPOSITIONS


Chapter
Short title
Extent of repeal


1925 c.86.
Criminal Justice Act 1925.
Section 13(3).


1965 c.69.
Criminal Procedure (Attendance of Witnesses) Act 1965.
In Part I of Schedule 2, the entry relating to the Criminal Justice Act 1925.


1967 c.80.
Criminal Justice Act 1967.
Section 7.

 
1980 c.43.
Magistrates' Courts Act 1980.
In Schedule 7, paragraph 63.

These repeals have effect in accordance with provision made by the Secretary of State by order under Schedule (Statements and depositions) to this Act.'—[Mr. Maclean.]

Main Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 60 (Amendment on Second or Third Reading), and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third Time, and passed.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (TREATIES)

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (The Energy Charter Treaty) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 20th May, be approved.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation).

GUN BARREL PROVING

That the draft Deregulation (Gun Barrel Proving) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 29th April, be approved.— [Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees).

DRIVING LICENCES

That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 5414/96 relating to driving licences, and endorses the Government's proposed approach to negotiations on the proposal in the Council.—[Mr. Burns.]

Question agreed to.

273 Squadron (Badge)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Burns.]

Mr. Nigel Waterson: We have all heard about the forgotten army in Burma, a memorable phrase coined by the late Earl Mountbatten. The debate tonight is about the forgotten squadron—a group of brave men who have fought for more than 50 years ago to have their squadron properly recognised.
No. 273 Fighter Squadron was originally formed during the first world war, and was disbanded at the end of hostilities. The squadron was reformed on 1 August 1939 in Ceylon, where it withstood the most ferocious Japanese attack. The squadron went on to be one of the most forward squadrons during the Burma campaign, as it was based just 260 miles south of Japanese lines. It was the first squadron into Rangoon and into Saigon. Its pilots flew sortie after sortie from airstrips cut from the jungle or from dried-up rice fields.
Conditions were far from ideal, and 14 pilots were killed. Since the days of the last war, others have died from natural causes, but the spirit of 273 Squadron has lived on, in the survivors and in the families of those who have not survived.
The campaign, spanning more than 50 years, has sought to give the squadron the recognition it so richly deserves by means of a squadron badge. I was wholly unaware of the history of 273 squadron until I received a letter from a constituent, Mr. Miles Bayly, known affectionately as Bill. He wrote to me on 6 March and told me that he had served as pilot in Burma with 273 Squadron, and also told me of the attempts to obtain a squadron badge since November 1944.
As he put it:
many members of the squadron who came from the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand are now all well into their seventies with the likelihood of a limited remaining life expectancy. Thus it would seem fitting and most appropriate if this question could be resolved now before they, and the squadron, sink into oblivion—'unwept, unhonoured and unsung'.
I was touched by that appeal, and immediately raised the matter in correspondence with the Ministry of Defence. I asked for the debate tonight because the MOD is still putting forward what are, in my opinion, inadequate reasons for not honouring the squadron. To grant it its badge would be a relatively small thing for the Ministry, but it would mean so much for the survivors of 273 Squadron, their families and the families of those who did not survive.
The squadron is, I am told, the only active service Fighter Command squadron that fought in any the theatre of war in the second world war, and suffered significant losses, and yet was not granted its own badge. You may ask, Madam Deputy Speaker, why that has presented a problem. Over the years, the MOD has put forward a number of different reasons or excuses.
It is said by Ministers, and most recently by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Earl Howe, that badges are not approved for disbanded units. That can hardly be of any real relevance, because the original application for the 273 Squadron badge was

submitted from Ceylon in 1943. The request was received in Whitehall, after some delay, in November 1944, before the squadron was disbanded for the second time.
I take the view, not unreasonably, that any delay after the application was made is a matter for the MOD, and not the fault of the squadron. After all, it was certainly not within its control when it was disbanded at the end of the war.
The actual design for the badge comprises the ancient Asian fylfot or cross Gamadian on a castellated fess, symbolising peace and good will. Superimposed on that is the black widow spider, with the motto "Toujours Prêt". It is said that the cost of granting badges in such circumstances would be "prohibitive", apparently because each design submitted must be approved by the College of Arms and Her Majesty the Queen. I would like the Minister to tell us what sort of costs we are talking about. I cannot imagine that they come even close to outweighing the sacrifices made by those who did not survive—or, indeed, by those who did.
Amazingly, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who wrote to me on 21 May, said that, apart from the cost of granting badges in such circumstances being "prohibitive", it
would immediately be non-effective".
Well, that may be strictly true in terms of a squadron that no longer exists, but that is far from the case when one considers the feelings of those involved. A squadron does not cease to exist in the hearts of its men merely because it is disbanded. It is important to note that the squadron was disbanded once, and re-formed, and then disbanded a second time. Heaven forbid, there is always the possibility that it may be re-formed in the future.
Another reason for not granting the badge that has been given in the past, and in the Under-Secretary's letter most recently, is that the design originally submitted by the unit incorporated a fylfot, which is synonymous with the swastika. While there may be some similarity between the fylfot and the swastika, the former, which in Asia symbolises peace and good will, is considerably older than the swastika, and was recognised, and in general use, thousands of years before it was hijacked by the Nazi party.
It would indeed be the height of absurdity if that Royal Air Force squadron were to be denied its badge design of choice because of the modern pretensions of the Nazis, one of the very enemies against whom it was fighting. Be that as it may, it has been put to me that, if this still appears to be an insurmountable objection to the granting of the badge, the survivors are prepared to consider a change in design. I think that is only fair, and I hope that it will provoke a dialogue with the MOD and with the College of Arms.
A further objection is that parts of the design and the motto have been incorporated into the badges of other units. I am told that there is no formal objection to the use of a motto more than once. Indeed, King George VI granted 617 Squadron the motto "Apres Moi Le Deluge", which was already in use. I have explained that the survivors are willing to consider a change in the design if it is thought appropriate.
Incidentally, I have received a letter from another constituent, Mr. Reg Baldwin, who pointed out that, during the 1914–18 war, the British National War Savings Committee used an emblem very similar to the swastika.
Another reason that is put forward from time to time is that the granting of 273 Squadron's request would open the floodgates for other units. In addition, there is a rule that a squadron should exist for five years before and after receiving recognition of its badge. Only one other squadron has been mentioned as being in a similar position to 273 Squadron. I very much doubt whether there would be a queue of other units seeking recognition after all these years.
I am told that there are a number of squadrons that did not come within the five-year rule, but they still received badges—including Squadrons 272, 274, 353, 617 and 684. For example, 177 Squadron existed for only two years and seven months, and it was granted a badge after it was disbanded. I have already made the point that 273 Squadron had no control over its disbanding, but that it certainly made its application for a badge before that date. Moreover, it can trace its history back to the great war.
As if this were not enough, there is also a regulation saying that those who made conspicuous contributions are exempt from the normal requirements. I am afraid that I must part company with the Minister, who said in a letter to me:
The lack of a badge should not detract from the very great contribution made by those who served in 273 squadron.
However, the letter fails to recognise that those who suffered the privations of the Burma campaign and who put their lives on the line on a daily basis feel that their recognition is incomplete without the badge being approved. It means that their badge cannot appear in the RAF church, St. Clement Danes, or in the RAF club in Piccadilly or in the RAF museum in Hendon. That is the issue here, and that is why I urge my hon. Friend to apply a fresh mind to it.
I shall quote from a moving letter that I received from John Taylor MC, from Dorset, who had read of the efforts of 273 Squadron to obtain recognition. He wrote a letter to the editor of The Times and spoke about the involvement of the squadron in his activities when he was attached to the 5th Indian division near Rangoon. He talked about the Gurkhas being cut off on the banks of the Sittang river and about 273 Squadron coming on to the scene.
He stated:
First, they bombed a machine gun post occupied by the Japs, which fired straight down the railway line for the Jap railway. Armed with 5001b bombs they dived in sequence, in spite of Jap efforts to discourage them. Finally, a lucky strike got a bomb to enter the post via an opening. Watching, I saw the roof lift about a foot. After that, the machine gun was silent"—
adding, in a masterpiece of understatement—
and crossing the line from one side of our perimeter to the other became much easier.
Secondly, two nights later, the Japs had succeeded in getting 150 men and 75mm guns into caves on the cliff of the Sittang River … I counted 142 shells which landed in our area within half an hour. I took bearings of the gun flashes".
The information was then passed on to 273 Squadron.
He continued:
it was later reported that three or more of the guns had been knocked out by bombs.
He concluded:
For these two actions 273 Squadron have surely earned the right to be treated in exactly the same way as all other Squadrons of the Royal Air Force, who were so helpful to us on the ground.

With respect, Mr. Taylor is in a far better position to judge the true contribution of 273 Squadron than any civil servant in Whitehall. The men of 273 Squadron risked their lives flying Spitfires in the heat of battle, alongside the forgotten army. Many paid the supreme sacrifice, and now—50 years later—there are only 90 survivors. They seek the recognition that they and their fallen comrades so richly deserve.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Nicholas Soames): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) on securing this important debate tonight, and I am delighted to have the opportunity to reply to it. My hon. Friend deserves great credit for bringing this matter to the attention of the House.
Many hon. Members have made representations to my Department on this important matter. I pay a warm tribute to the efforts of my hon. Friend's constituent, Mr. Bill Bayly. I also pay a warm tribute to the dedication of Miss Jane Pelling, who has worked tirelessly with veterans and their dependants to enlist the support of hon. Members in bringing an important and interesting matter before the House.
I have listened with great care and interest to the points made by my hon. Friend. I share with him—he knows that I mean this—the sentiments that he has expressed about the contribution that the men in 273 Squadron made to the heroic struggle in the far east. They were dark days, and we all owe an immense debt of gratitude to those gallant Royal Air Force men who fought so well against the Japanese. They performed a valuable service. I am reminded of the words of Field Marshal Lord Slim, who, in speaking of the RAF's part in victory, said:
I do not think that such devotion has been surpassed in any air force, and I doubt that it has been equalled.
The 273 Squadron made a particularly noteworthy contribution, first in resolutely defending Ceylon, and then, once the tide had turned, in speeding the retreat of the enemy's forces by constantly harassing their ground positions. As my hon. Friend said, their efforts were not made without supreme sacrifice—and a number of valiant squadron members sadly lost their lives on other occasions during the campaign.
I want hon. Members to understand how deeply I share in the wish of all those who are keen—rightly and admirably—to keep alive, green and fresh, the cherished memory of those fine young men of 273 Squadron and its significant contribution to winning the war in the far east. We should and do remember their efforts. We should do so as a tribute to those who sadly died. Succeeding generations should look back with pride and in wonder at the achievements of their forebears.
I deeply wish that it need not have been necessary for my hon. Friend to bring this matter before the House today. I wish also that it could have been possible to accede to the request of Miss Pelling and fellow supporters of the 273 Squadron and to award a badge to the squadron. However, as the many hon. Members who have made representations to me are aware, the award of a badge results from a detailed process, to which are rightly attached long-standing rules that have been applied faithfully and consistently over the years for very good reasons.
Indeed, it is precisely the ancient traditions, rules and conventions of heraldry that make an officially approved badge so special—and they are the rules that prevent my Department from responding positively to this request.
I therefore hope that the House will forgive me if I pause a moment to explain a little about the significance of squadron badges. I will also touch on the process by which those badges are awarded. That is important in understanding why my Department has been unable to agree to the award of a unit badge to No. 273 Squadron.
The control of heraldry, and therefore of unit badges, squadron standards and the Queen's colours in the Royal Air Force, is entrusted to officers of the College of Arms, who are appointed by the sovereign for that purpose. The granting of new arms is the prerogative of the sovereign, as she is the Fountain of Honour. That prerogative is delegated by letters patent under the Great Seal to the Kings of Arms-Garter, Clarenceux, Norroy and Ulster in England and Northern Ireland, and Lyon in Scotland.
My hon. Friends may be aware that heraldry first appeared in this country about the middle of the 12th century. Its object was twofold: on the one hand there was a need to identify one person from another in battle, when mediaeval armour completely covered the wearer and made him indistinguishable save by the banner, shield and surcoat of his arms; and on the other there was a requirement to identify him when conducting business. In a time when writing was not commonly practised, documents were "signed" by affixing to them the seals of their arms.
Heraldic insignia consists of arms, crests and badges. Arms are borne on a shield, and crests on a helmet, corresponding to their original uses. Badges are a separate category. They are devices which stand alone, and were used—as they are today—to mark and to identify property. They are possibly the oldest form of heraldic insignia.
Before the 18th century, Army regiments tended to be raised and supported by the officers who commanded them. The commanding officer thus placed his arms on colours and uniforms in order to signify his control of the unit. From that time on, however, a royal warrant laid down that no regiment might bear on its colours the arms or crest of its colonel, thereby asserting the prerogative of the Crown to raise armies.
Regiments were henceforth the King's regiments, and therefore any badges borne on their colours must be royal badges or badges approved by the sovereign. That rule against displaying arms and crests of individuals and corporations has since been generally enforced. When badges were instituted for Royal Air Force units, a similar rule was laid down.
Badges, not crests, are used by all three services. The various devices are heraldic in nature, and are controlled by heraldic officers—the newly appointed inspector of Royal Air Force badges is Garter, Principal King of Arms. Royal Air Force badges are designed to bear some allusion to the services or associations of the units to which they are assigned. All unique badges receive the approval of Her Majesty the Queen before they are issued and recorded.
Badges are approved, I stress, as a means of displaying to the world the unit's pride in its service to the sovereign. Therefore, giving the badge a memorial significance—

while in many ways a wholly admirable sentiment—plays no part in its essential nature, which is simply as a unique unit identification. It is the standard of the fighting unit that is more appropriately identified as a memorial, bearing as it does the battle honours of the unit. My hon. Friend and I have been privileged to see many regimental and unit standards of the three services displayed with great reverence in churches and cathedrals throughout the length and breadth of this land.
The procedures for obtaining a badge include a requirement that the unit should have been in existence for a least five years or, exceptionally, have made some conspicuous and meritorious contribution to the good name of the Royal Air Force—clearly No. 273 Squadron did that. It must have at least five years further service available to it. Furthermore, the design of the badge and motto must be in a form acceptable to the service chain of command who will recommend the design to the College of Arms for endorsement.
The College of Arms must also be satisfied that the proposed design is unique and heraldically correct. In the case of Royal Air Force unit badges, the heraldic decision is made by the Inspector of Air Force Badges. Finally, if the criteria are met, the badge is submitted to the sovereign for Her Majesty's personal approval.
I hope that that general explanation of the award of unit badges will help my hon. Friend to understand—as I know he does—the great difficulty that I have in responding positively to the request for a unit badge for No. 273 Squadron. A badge design was first submitted by 273 Squadron for approval in November 1944. That design, which we are told was being used by the squadron throughout the Burma campaign, was rejected by the Air Command South East Asia, by the Allied Air Commander-in-Chief, by the Air Ministry and by the College of Arms.
As a consequence, the squadron was requested to submit an alternative design. It did so, but regretfully that also was rejected, as it duplicated both a design and a motto already in use. The squadron was accordingly invited to submit a further alternative design. In March 1946, on the instructions of the then Air Command South East Asia, no further action was taken on the resubmission of an alternative unit badge. Under the rules then current, such a resubmission on behalf of a disbanded unit would not have been allowed—neither, I should add, would such a submission be acceptable today.
No. 273 Squadron is not alone in not having a unit badge. Indeed, there are some 80 former Royal Air Force flying squadrons for whom no badge was approved for a large number of reasons. Some, like 273 Squadron, were disbanded before a design could be agreed, and there were those who simply failed to apply.
I know that, over the past 30 years, a number of requests for the award of a badge have been rejected. I know—and wholly appreciate—that those decisions have been met with great disappointment and sadness by those who have advocated the award of a badge for 273 Squadron. They rightly point out that, without a unit badge, there can be no representation of the squadron alongside the replica slate badges in the floor of the Royal Air Force church of St Clement Danes in the Strand, or at the Royal Air Force museum at Hendon.
As I hope my hon. Friend will appreciate, I share fully in the sadness of those who regret that it is not possible for an official badge to be accepted. However, I am truly


at a loss to see how the House can be asked to change an event in history: put simply, the squadron was disbanded before a badge could be awarded. Nor am I able to seek the approval of Her Majesty the Queen regarding the award of a badge that is not required to identify equipment in the service of the Crown. That would amount to the reversal of a policy approved by previous sovereigns, which has stood the test of time over the past 200 years.
That said, I believe that there are a number of steps that might assist those hon Members who believe, as I do, that the squadron deserves better recognition. I believe that there could be no more fitting memorial to that heroic squadron than if the group who have campaigned so splendidly were to form into an official squadron association. My hon. Friend may not know that Garter, King of Arms may, by letters patent, grant an heraldic insignia to squadron associations. In the absence of an official badge, that may enable the veterans of 273 Squadron to gain, in part, what they desire.
Furthermore, it would potentially facilitate the provision of a permanent memorial to 273 Squadron. I am pleased to say that, following discussions that I have had via the relevant command, the trustees of St Clement Danes would be prepared in principle to give sympathetic consideration to a request from the supporters of 273 Squadron for a memorial of an approved design to take its place in the body of the church along with those of

other squadrons. My Department will of course be delighted to assist in bringing that to fruition if it is the wish of a newly formed squadron association.
We all agree that we owe a huge debt to those who fought so valiantly, and who sacrificed so much, in order that subsequent generations should enjoy freedom. That debt can never be fully repaid. I hope that the House will understand and accept my explanations of why it has not been possible to accede to the request for the award of a unit badge to the disbanded 273 Squadron.
I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that the lack of a badge in no way diminishes the fine record of 273 Squadron. The men of that squadron are neither unwept, unhonoured nor unsung. Nor does it deny the squadron its rightful place in history among all the other units which gave so much in the cause of freedom. As I have said, many other squadrons for one reason or another have, like 273 Squadron, not been awarded a unit badge.
I hope that the House is encouraged by my remarks about the possibility of placing a memorial in St Clement Danes. I commend that course to those who have tonight brought the record of 273 Squadron so admirably to the attention of the House. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne on his measured, persuasive and elegant presentation tonight.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Nine o 'clock.